Keeping track of welfare reform
The New Deal programmes
Jane Millar
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has supported this project as part of its programme of
research and innovative development projects, which it hopes will be of value to policy
makers and practitioners. The facts presented and views expressed in this report are,
however, those of the author and not necessarily those of the Foundation.
The author would like to thank Lyn Webster for her research assistance. Thanks also to the
Employment Service (ES) and Department of Social Security (DSS), which passed on reports
and provided briefings and further information.
© Joseph Rowntree Foundation 2000
All rights reserved.
Published for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation by YPS
ISBN 1 902633 92 X
Cover design by Adkins Design
Prepared and printed by:
York Publishing Services Ltd
64 Hallfield Road
Layerthorpe
York YO31 7ZQ
Tel: 01904 430033; Fax: 01904 430868; Website: www.yps-publishing.co.uk
Contents
Page
Summary
iv
1
Background and context
The New Deal programmes
Comparing the New Deal programmes
The welfare-to-work package
Evaluating the New Deal
Evaluating the evaluations
1
1
5
7
10
11
2
Labour market effects
New Deal participation and exits
Employment additionality
14
14
16
3
The impact on individuals: the compulsory programmes
The New Deal for Young People
The New Deal for Long-term Unemployed People
The compulsory programmes: emerging issues
19
19
25
27
4
The impact on individuals: the voluntary programmes
The New Deal for Disabled People
The New Deal for Lone Parents
The New Deal for Partners
The voluntary programmes: emerging issues
30
30
32
35
36
5
Delivering the New Deal: changing cultures and ways of working
New Deal partnerships
Providing New Deal places: employers and others
The views of Personal Advisers
New Deal, new approach?
40
40
41
43
44
Notes
48
References
49
Appendix: Annotated bibliography of New Deal evaluations
53
Summary
There are six main New Deal programmes, and
they vary in a number of ways: size of target
group, key aims and objectives, eligibility rules,
conditionality, type of support offered and in
relationship to other policy measures.
The New Deal for Young People (NDYP) is
targeted on those aged 18 to 24 and
unemployed for at least six months. It is
compulsory, and includes a ‘gateway’ period of
advice and support followed by one of four
options (subsidised employment, full-time
education and training, voluntary work,
environmental work).
The New Deal for Long-term Unemployed
(NDLTU) is targeted on those aged 25 plus who
have been unemployed for 12, 18 or 24 months
(depending on area). Personal Advisers offer
advice and support, and there are two main
options (subsidised employment and
education/training).
The New Deal for Lone Parents (NDLP) is
voluntary and consists of an initial interview
with a Personal Adviser, caseloading, job search
and in-work support. The target group is lone
mothers on Income Support for six months or
more and with a youngest child aged five years
and three months or over.
The New Deal for Partners of Unemployed
People (NDPU) is aimed at partners of
unemployed jobseekers. It is voluntary and
offers two main alternatives. For those aged 18
to 24 and without children, there is the option of
voluntary participation in the NDYP. For those
aged 18 to 24 and with children and those aged
25 plus, there is access to advice and guidance
from a Personal Adviser.
The New Deal for Disabled People (NDDP) is
voluntary and offers access to advice and
information through a Personal Adviser. It is
iv
60
also intended to raise awareness of the
employment needs of people with disabilities
among employers and service providers.
The New Deal for People Aged 50 and Above
(ND50+) is another voluntary programme with
the target group being those aged 50 and over,
and receiving incapacity benefits or Jobseeker’s
Allowance/Income Support (JSA/IS) for at least
six months. It offers access to a Personal Adviser
and those finding work can receive an
employment credit for up to one year.
These programmes are operating in the
context of a wide range of other welfare-to-work
policies, some not in place when the evaluations
were carried out. These include the National
Child Care Strategy, the tax and benefit changes
intended to ‘make work pay’ (particularly
through the introduction of tax credit schemes),
the introduction of a National Minimum Wage
and various area-based measures, such as
Employment Zones.
The evaluation of the New Deal draws on
two main types of data – administrative data
collated in the New Deal Evaluation Database
and data collected through individual research
projects. This extensive evaluation programme
reflects a strong government commitment to
‘evidence-based’ policy and practice, which is
apparent in many other areas of policy. The aim
is to provide information on both outcomes and
processes – on what impact the programmes
have and on how they achieve that impact. The
early studies have tended to focus on the
former, with the aim of learning lessons for
national implementation. Over 20 reports have
been published so far.
Summary
Labour market effects
Just under 440,000 young people had been
through the NDYP by February 2000, and in
total about 200,000 people had found jobs. Of
these, around 146,000 were in sustained (lasting
13 weeks or more) jobs. This is equivalent to
about 34 per cent of all participants, lower for
women (31 per cent) and ethnic minorities (27
per cent). It is estimated that in the first year the
NDYP led to a reduction in youth
unemployment of about 30,000. About half of
those who found work would probably have
done so anyway. It is projected that about
250,000 young people will be moved into
employment over the four years planned for the
programme. This should make it more or less
self-financing over that time.
Around 238,000 people had been through
the NDLTU by February 2000 and in total about
38,000 people had found jobs. Of these, about
32,000 were in sustained (lasting 13 weeks or
more) jobs. This is equivalent to about 13 per
cent of all participants, about the same for men
and women. Over half of those who leave the
programme return to JSA/IS.
About 133,000 lone parents had attended an
initial NDLP interview by February 2000. Just
over half (54 per cent) came from the target
group, that is women with school-age children,
and among these 37 per cent were ‘early’ starts,
people who came forward before being invited
to interview. Of those who had left the NDLP, 39
per cent had gone into employment and 43 per
cent returned to IS. Almost half of those in
employment are continuing to receive Personal
Adviser support. The additional employment
effect – i.e. those who would not have found
work without the programme – was estimated
at 20 per cent for the prototype scheme. The
prototype more or less covered costs.
The numbers going through the NDDP and
NDPU are still relatively small. Over the first
three months of the NDPU, about 1,400 people
were interviewed, 6 per cent of whom found
jobs. Over about 15 months of the NDDP pilots
and innovative programmes, just over 10,000
people had initial Personal Adviser interviews
and around 6,600 had drawn up personal action
plans. About 3,000 had been accepted on to
innovative programmes and just over 2,000 had
found jobs.
The impact on individuals
Generally, participants have positive attitudes to
work, although they may be pessimistic about
their chances of finding work. Some come into
the programmes with very specific ideas about
what they want to do, while others are much
more vague. In the voluntary programmes,
take-up is low, but not always because people
were choosing not to take part – many did not
remember having been invited, others could not
do so at the time and might have joined later, if
they had been contacted again. This suggests
the need for a much more proactive approach to
getting people to participate.
For all groups, the main barriers to work
centred around lack of skills and work
experience, low or inappropriate job search,
psychological factors (including lack of selfconfidence and lack of realistic goals), the level
and type of job opportunities available in the
local labour market, and employer attitudes. But
different emphases were found for different
groups. For young people, the key barriers were
v
Keeping track of welfare reform
lack of skills and work experience, ineffective
job search, low pay, and access to and costs of
transport. For the long-term unemployed, the
key barriers were a mismatch between their
skills and what was required, outdated skills
and lack of transport. For disabled people, the
extra barriers were special needs associated
with their disabilities and employer attitudes.
For lone parents, child care and money issues
were paramount. For partners, it was also child
care and a concern about role reversal. Each
group included people with multiple barriers
and special needs.
The most important thing in the way people
perceive the programmes is the Personal
Adviser. Effective Advisers are seen as friendly,
helpful, approachable. Ineffective advisers treat
people with a lack of respect and do not have
enough of the right sort of information.
However, a friendly attitude is not enough by
itself – people also want their needs identified
and practical help offered. The long-term
unemployed are perhaps the most cynical about
the programme (just another scheme) and tend
to be most instrumental in their assessment of
the Personal Advisers. The lone parents are
probably most positive about the individual
attention and support. Overall, participation led
to a positive response. It boosted confidence,
enhanced job seeking, improved skills. But more
negative views were expressed where
programmes were felt not to be meeting needs.
Among young people, there was a clear
hierarchy of views about the options – from jobs
(for work experience), to education (for
particular skills), to voluntary and environment.
On the delivery side, there were various
different patterns of partnership working, some
more involving of local stakeholders than
vi
others. From providers in general, the most
common complaint was that there was not
enough basic skills training and motivation
boosting before people came to them. Larger
employers were sometimes reluctant to take
part in the NDYP because they did not want to
change existing training to National Vocational
Qualification (NVQ) training. The
environmental (and to some extent voluntary)
options tended to have more polarised client
groups, including both a high proportion of
mandatory referrals and a small group of very
committed people, who did not mix well.
From the Personal Adviser perspective, there
was a lot of job satisfaction and they also
enjoyed the changed nature of their interaction
with clients. There was some evidence that
Personal Advisers were less good at dealing
with people with multiple problems and needs.
As programmes moved to national level,
advisers worked less intensively with
individuals (as caseloads got larger) and became
more employment oriented. Interactions with
individuals tended to fall off the longer they
stayed in the programme, especially in the
voluntary programmes.
Emerging issues
The New Deal package for young people and
long-term older unemployed workers aims to
improve employability – the capacity to get
access to work, to stay in employment and to
move on to better jobs – through offering
individualised support and a set menu of
options, all including work experience and
training. The New Deal package for lone
parents, disabled people and the partners of
unemployed people aims to reduce barriers to
Summary
work for these groups by providing them with
information and advice to enable them to take
up job opportunities. Participation is voluntary
and training opportunities may be available but
there is no menu of options as in the
compulsory programmes. Thus, it could be
argued that these voluntary programmes are in
practice more ‘work-first’ than the compulsory
programmes, which have a stronger ‘human
capital’ element.
The role of the Personal Advisers is ‘pivotal’
for how both participants and providers assess
the programmes, and both groups would like
the Personal Advisers to do even more.
Employers want Advisers to prepare people
more and be more selective on their behalf.
Clients want practical help with their specific
needs. This raises potential conflicts in meeting
these demands. As caseloads increase, and as
the range of clients becomes more diverse,
creating tailor-made packages is likely to
become more difficult. In the ONE pilot
programmes (recently introduced and bringing
the Benefits Agency and Employment Service
together), Personal Advisers will deal with all
client groups, who will be required to attend
interviews. This makes sense in that there are
clear similarities in both perceived barriers and
actual barriers across these groups. But there
were also some more specific barriers/needs for
different groups and a wide range of work
readiness within each group. There is a potential
tension between the welfare and the control
roles of the Personal Advisers, heightened when
compulsion is involved.
There was a range of views about the value
or otherwise of compulsion among the various
client groups in the programmes, with some
people arguing that it is always
counterproductive and others that compulsion
can help people who would not otherwise get
into these sorts of programmes. Compulsion to
attend an initial interview was generally looked
upon more favourably than compulsion to take
up particular options, whether these were
training, work experience or jobs. Compulsion
for certain groups (young people, long-term
unemployed) was looked upon more favourably
than compulsion for others (older workers, lone
parents, disabled people, and partners). The
difference seems to relate, at least in part, to the
other roles and responsibilities of these groups,
particularly caring roles.
The New Deal process is dynamic, and the
routes people take through the process have to
be flexible in order to meet individual needs.
People may need to step back into previous
stages, or continue to be helped after they have
‘left’ the programme and moved into work.
There can, however, be tensions between
flexibility and forward planning. The latter
sometimes seemed to be missing from the
voluntary programmes and people complained
of lack of direction. On the other hand, the
requirement to move into options was
sometimes experienced as too rigid in the
compulsory programmes, and the gap between
the individualised assessment and the fixed
options that followed was felt to be too large.
Labour market programmes are always
more effective for those already closest to
employment but, perhaps especially for groups
such as lone parents and disabled people, access
to support and accurate information may be an
important element in helping people into work.
Even those who are otherwise work-ready seem
to benefit from this. The New Deal programmes
will, however, have to work harder in order to
vii
Keeping track of welfare reform
reach those with multiple disadvantages and
special needs. Such people are a minority but
they are found in all the New Deal client
groups.
The research shows that the New Deal is
having an impact on employment outcomes for
a range of different groups of workless people,
and suggests the Personal Adviser approach has
viii
had a positive impact on the responses of both
participants and providers. These evaluations
have mainly been in relation to the prototypes
and the initial stages of the national scheme,
and the next stage of research will be able to tell
us more about whether and how this picture
holds when the national programmes for all
these groups are fully up and running.
1 Background and context
Welfare reform is at the centre of the Labour
government’s programme and welfare-to-work
at the centre of welfare reform. Among the first
measures announced after the 1997 election was
the New Deal for Young People, a major new
programme aimed at eliminating
unemployment among under 25 year olds, by
offering them support to find work, or the
opportunity for work experience and/or
training, backed up by incentives to employers
to take on these new young workers. The New
Deal for Young People was rapidly followed by
other New Deal programmes, including
programmes for groups of people who had
previously always been excluded from labour
market programmes (lone parents, disabled
people, partners of unemployed people) as well
as programmes for more traditional target
groups (the long-term unemployed and older
workers). These programmes have been
implemented across the country in different
ways, in different contexts and with different
levels of resources attached to them. Some were
piloted at local level before national
implementation. Some were delivered by the
Department of Social Security (DSS) and others
by the Employment Service (ES). Some included
private and voluntary sector involvement. All,
however, have been and are being subject to
formal assessment and evaluation, using a
variety of different methods and approaches
with the aim of understanding both what impact
the programmes have and how they achieve that
impact.
The aim of this review paper is to summarise
what these evaluations are telling us about how
the New Deal is working in practice so far. This
first chapter sets the scene by describing the
various New Deal programmes and placing
them in the wider context of welfare-to-work
policies. The evaluation strategy is also
described. In general, these evaluations are
ongoing, with some studies yet to be completed
and results made available. Using the published
material, the following chapters examine the
labour market impact and how the programmes
are operating in practice.
The New Deal programmes
Table 1 provides an overview of the six New
Deal programmes,1 showing details of the target
groups, of the date of implementation, of the
size of budget and of the options available to
participants.
The New Deal for Young People (NDYP) was
the first programme and remains the largest,
both in terms of budget (£2,620 million) and
numbers who have so far participated. It also
has the most extensive list of options. It is
compulsory for those aged 18 to 24 who have
been unemployed continuously for six months
(or for shorter periods under certain conditions).
It starts with a four-month ‘gateway’ period of
assessment and guidance. For those who do not
find employment during this period, the
gateway is followed by one of four options.
These are subsidised employment, work
experience with a voluntary organisation
including training, work experience with an
environmental task force including training, and
full-time education or training. The first three
options all include at least one day per week of
approved training. In the subsidised
employment option, employers receive a
subsidy of up to £60 per week for up to six
months (rising to £75 from April 2000) and up to
£750 towards the cost of training. There is also a
1
2
From April 2001,
interview
From October
2000, interview
in ONE areas
No
£190m +
£10m for
8 pilots
January
1999
Lone parents with
children aged over 5,
claiming IS for at least
3 months
The New
Deal for
Lone Parents
0.5m
£450m
0.5m
Yes, national, the
initial interviews
are compulsory
Aged over 25 years,
claiming JSA for over
2 years, earlier entry
in ‘pilot’ areas
The New
Deal for the
Long-term
Unemployed
Pilots, 13 weeks’
‘advisory
interview
process’
£2,620m
0.4m
Yes
Aged 18–24 years
claiming JSA
continuously for 6
months; earlier entry
for disadvantaged
groups
Target group
Budget
1997–02
Approx.
no. in
target
group
Required for
those in target
group
The New
Deal for
Young
People
Programme
Table 1 New Deal programmes: overview
2 April (new)
and October
1998 (all)
1 July 1997 in 8
prototype areas
2 Pilots
November
1998 in 28 areas
Personal Adviser
Training grant in pilot areas
From April 2001, four options:
employment with subsidy, workbased training, voluntary work,
environmental work
Personal Adviser; gateway; two
options (employment with
subsidy; training for up to 12
months); training grant; 13 weeks
‘advisory interview process’ in
pilot areas
1 National June
1998
2 April 1998
Personal Adviser; gateway; four
options (employment with
subsidy; voluntary work;
environmental work; full-time
training or education); follow
through
Options
1 January 1998
in 12
pathfinder
areas
Start date
1 Pilot
2 National
Keeping track of welfare reform
Claming Incapacity
Benefit, SDA or IS
Disability Premium
Claiming IB, SDA or
IS/JSA for 6 months
plus partners of above
The New
Deal for
Disabled
People
The New
Deal for 50
plus
No
From October
2000, interview
in ONE areas
No
From October
2000 for 18–24
years without
children
2.0m
0.9m
£270m
£200m
£60m
0.2m
No
2 April 2000
1 October 1999
in 9 pathfinder
areas
2 April 2000
1 October 1998
in 6 ES areas
and April 1999
for 6
innovative
programmes
2 April 1999
1 February
1999 in 3
pathfinder
areas
Start date
1 Pilot
2 National
Sour
ce: Statistical First Release, 24 June 1999; NI Labour Market Bulletin; TUC New Deal Briefings.
Partners of people
unemployed for 6
months or more,
claiming incomebased JSA with
partner’s addition
Target group
The New
Deal for
Partners
Programme
Budget
1997–02
Approx.
no. in
target
group
Required for
those in target
group
Table 1 New Deal programmes: overview (continued)
Personal Adviser
Training grant
Employment credit for 52 weeks
Personal Adviser
Various other services in the
innovative programmes
1 For 18–24, and no children,
access to NDYP
2 For others, Personal Adviser
Options
Background and context
3
Keeping track of welfare reform
self-employment option. For those who reach
the end of their option without finding work,
there is a ‘follow through’ period of support,
guidance and, if required, further training. The
national programme was introduced in April
1998, but the programme was first introduced in
January 1998 in 12 ‘pathfinder’ areas. The aim of
the pathfinder programmes was to provide
guidance and lessons for the national roll-out.
The New Deal for Long-term Unemployed
(NDLTU) was introduced in June 1998. It
consists of a ‘national’ programme targeted at
those aged 25 plus who have been unemployed
for two years or more and a ‘pilot’ programme
operating in 28 areas of the country, in which
eligibility is extended to those unemployed for
12 or 18 months.2 The key features of the
national provision are interviews with the
Personal Adviser, followed by a tailored
programme for participants. The two main
options available are subsidies for employment
(employers receive a subsidy of £75 per week
for up to six months, £50 for part-time workers)
and access to one year’s vocational training
while still receiving JSA. The advisory aspect of
the national programmes is compulsory, but
further participation is not. The pilot
programmes vary in provision but all include a
gateway period (six to 13 weeks) of help and
support followed by an ‘Intensive Activity
Period’ of up to 13 weeks. Participation in the
latter is compulsory. In some pilot areas,
participants can receive top-up payments (£15
per week over and above JSA) and are eligible
for the employment subsidy of £75 per week (as
in the national programme). Follow-through
support is also available for all participants. In
two pilot areas, there has been random
assignment to options (allowing a more
4
controlled evaluation). From April 2000, there
will be four options available (subsidised
employment, work-based training, voluntary
and environmental work) and it will be
compulsory to take up one of these.
The New Deal for Lone Parents (NDLP) is
funded with £190 million over four years. It was
introduced in eight prototype areas in July 1997,
and extended nationally in April 1998 to include
all lone parents making new or repeat Income
Support claims. From October 1998, existing
lone parents were also included in the
programme, with those on Income Support for
six months or more and with a youngest child
aged five years and three months or over being
sent an invitation letter (this group comprises
the ‘target group’). The programme consists of
an initial interview, caseloading, job search and
in-work support. While on the NDLP, registered
child-care costs can be paid.
Lone parents within the target group receive
a letter from the ES inviting them to attend an
interview when their youngest child is aged five
(the target group is to be extended to all lone
parents with children aged three and above
from summer 2000). The Personal Adviser
explains the structure of the New Deal and
records information about the lone parent’s
circumstances and any barriers to employment.
In-work benefit calculations are made to see
whether the lone parent would be better off in
work. An action plan is drawn up if the lone
parent agrees to participate in the scheme.
Regular contact is maintained with the
participant through follow-up interviews when
the lone parent is helped to search for work or
to increase their skills through training and
other support. Participants who gain
employment are eligible to receive in-work
Background and context
support for which there is no time limit.
The New Deal for Partners of Unemployed
People (NDPU) is a smaller programme, aimed
at partners of unemployed job seekers, who
have been in receipt of JSA as a partner for at
least six months. It is non-compulsory and
offers two main alternatives. For those aged 18
to 24 and without children, there is the option of
voluntary participation in the NDYP. For those
aged 18 to 24 and with children, and those aged
25 plus, there is access to advice and guidance
from a Personal Adviser. From October 2000,
participation will become compulsory for young
people (under 25) without children.
The New Deal for Disabled People (NDDP) also
offers advice and information through a
Personal Adviser. It is also intended to raise
awareness of the employment needs of people
with disabilities among employers and service
providers. The programme is being developed
jointly by the Department for Education and
Employment (DfEE) and the DSS. Those
targeted for the programme are claimants in
receipt of Incapacity Benefit, Severe
Disablement Allowance and Income Support
with a disability premium. The first pilots were
started in October 1998 in six areas, all
administered by the ES. A further six pilots
started in April 1999, these being the ‘innovative
programmes’, run by non-government
providers (both private sector and voluntary)
following a competitive bidding process. The
national programme started in April 2000.
Finally, the New Deal for People Aged 50 and
Above (ND50+) is another voluntary programme
with the target group being those aged 50 and
over, receiving either JSA/IS or Incapacity
Benefits for at least six months. Their partners
may also be eligible. From October 1999, it was
operating in nine pathfinder areas and went
national from April 2000. Participation will give
access to a Personal Adviser who can offer
individual advice and support. There are also
training grants of up to £750 and employment
credit of £60 per week for full-time and £40 per
week for part-time work, for up to 52 weeks.
The ONE programme is a direct follow-on
from the New Deal programmes. It provides a
single entry point to the employment service
and benefits system for all claimants.3 It is being
piloted in four BA areas from June 1999 and in
another eight areas from November 1999, and
will run alongside the existing New Deal
programmes for the pilot periods. The private
and voluntary sectors have been invited to
provide innovatory programmes in four of the
eight November start areas. A key feature – and
departure from previous practice – is that from
April 2000 it will be mandatory for all claimants
in ONE areas to attend the initial ‘work-focused’
interview with a Personal Adviser. ONE
Personal Advisers will therefore include a range
of client groups in their caseloads, not just
young people or lone parents, but potentially all
groups of claimants.
Comparing the New Deal programmes
There are thus some significant differences
across the various programmes. The
compulsory programmes (NDYP and NDLTU)
cover groups who have traditionally been the
targets for labour market programmes, and their
needs and problems are probably the most
familiar to researchers and policy-makers, as
well as to the staff operating the programmes at
local level. The budgets for these programmes
are the largest, both absolutely and per person,
5
Keeping track of welfare reform
and they offer a wider range of options. In
addition, these programmes offer direct
subsidies to employers, potentially making
these participants the most attractive for
employers to take on. The ND50+ also covers a
group – older unemployed workers – who have
been targeted in previous labour market
programmes. The NDYP is, however, the only
one of these programmes to include access to
training in all the options.
The other three programmes are the most
innovatory in terms of client group. Lone
parents are not required to register for
employment as long as they have children
under 16 and so in general have not previously
had access to ES and other training
programmes. Similarly, many disabled people
have had to prove incapacity for employment in
order to receive benefits and so have been
excluded by definition from labour market
programmes. The partners of unemployed
people have been something of an invisible
group in the past, receiving benefits as
dependants of their unemployed partners but
not themselves required to consider seeking
work. New Deal participation is voluntary for
all three groups, although a degree of
compulsion will be introduced under the ONE
programme. The main element of these New
Deal programmes is access to a Personal
Adviser, who provides information, advice and
support. Participants can take part in training
and in some cases get access to training grants.
The key objectives of the programmes also
have some small, but possibly significant,
differences. These are summarised in the
evaluation reports as follows.
6
• The NDYP aims to ‘assist young people
who are unemployed to find sustainable
employment by enhancing skills,
providing vocational qualifications and
work experience and by encouraging
personal development’ (Woodfield et al.,
1999, p. i).
• The NDLTU aims to ‘help long-term
unemployed people aged 25 and over
into jobs and improve their prospects of
staying and progressing in employment;
increase the long-term employability of
the participant group; make a positive
contribution to sustainable levels of
employment and a reduction in social
exclusion’ (Legard et al., 2000, p.2).
• The NDLP aims to ‘promote movement
from Income Support to paid work’ and
other outcomes such as improved job
search or enhanced skills are ‘stepping
stones to a job rather than outcomes
themselves’ (Finch et al., 1999, p. 1). Thus,
the main aim is ‘to help lone parents on
Income Support move into work, or
towards work’ (Hales et al., 2000a, p. 1).
• The NDDP aims to ‘assist disabled people
and those with a long-standing illness
who want to work to do so, and help
those already in work to retain their
employment’ (Arthur et al., 1999, p. 13).
• The NDPU aims to ‘help partners in
workless households to achieve a
successful and sustainable entry into
employment and help progression to
better and/or full-time work for those
already in part-time work’ and ‘to give
partners equal access to ES programmes’
Background and context
and, for the ‘not job-ready’, to ‘create the
conditions for them to make or regain
contact with the labour market’ (Stone et
al., 2000, p. 1).
The welfare-to-work package
Another difference between the programmes
relates to the way in which they are embedded
in the wider welfare-to-work policies of the
government. Included under this heading are a
range of measures – changes to taxes and
benefits, to employment regulations and to
child-care provision – which are summarised in
Table 2. These measures will impact on different
groups of New Deal clients in different ways.
Young people benefit from the National
Minimum Wage (albeit at a lower rate than
older workers), and also from the changes to
starting rates of tax and NI. But there is not yet a
tax credit for this group and nor are they
generally affected by measures such as the
child-care provisions. The same is true for longterm unemployed workers, except insofar as
they have children.
Families with children, including lone
parents, and disabled people are the main
groups to gain from the new tax credit schemes.
The Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC)
provides a ‘guaranteed minimum income’ of
£200 per week, for a family with one earner in
full-time work and receiving the National
Minimum Wage (DSS, 1999). This will rise to
£214 from April 2001 (HM Treasury, 2000). The
Disabled Persons Tax Credit (DPTC) works in
much the same way as the WFTC, and provides
a minimum income guarantee for full-time
workers at National Minimum Wage level of
over £150 per week for a single person, and £230
per week for a one-earner couple with one child
aged under 11 (DSS, 1999). The child-care needs
of parents are to be tackled through the National
Child Care Strategy, which guarantees a nursery
place for all four year olds and increases the
supply of after-school provision for older
children; and by the child-care component of the
WFTC, which will pay the costs of registered
child care up to a certain level. Other measures
to encourage ‘family-friendly working’ are also
being put into place.
There is also a set of area-based measures,
outlined in Table 3, which are intended to
channel additional resources into areas of
particular deprivation. These include 17 New
Deal for Communities programmes, 15
Employment Zones and 12 Health Action
Zones. The New Deal for Communities and the
Employment Zones are intended to target areas
of particular disadvantage and channel extra
resources into these, with the aim of improving
employability of individuals within these areas.
They are, thus, like the individual New Deal
programmes, primarily aimed at improving
labour supply and not at stimulating labour
demand.
Thus, the NDLP and NDDP in particular are
very much part of wider packages of measures,
while the other New Deal programmes are
rather more free standing. However, it is
important to note that these other measures
have either started recently or are in the process
of being implemented and so the existing New
Deal programmes, and especially the prototype
or pilot programmes, were implemented
without the full set of supporting policies in
place. For some groups, such as lone parents,
this is of particular importance and the overall
impact cannot be fully assessed until the whole
7
8
Main tax and benefit changes
Extension of maternity rights; adoption of European Community Directives on parental leave (unpaid); on working time; and on
pro-rata rights for part-time workers; bringing employers with at least 15 employees into the scope of the Disability Discrimination
Act (December 1998).
Other employment-related measures
To provide good quality, affordable child care for children aged 0–14, in every neighbourhood. This includes formal child care and
support for informal arrangements with a focus on out-of-school provision. It includes, from 1999, the guarantee of a free nursery
place for all four year olds whose parents want one, and a commitment to make similar provision for all three year olds. Meanstested financial support for child-care costs, through the WFTC, which will meet up to 70 per cent of registered child-care costs, up
to a maximum amount.
The National Child Care Strategy
2003: Employment Credits and Integrated Child Credit to replace WFTC and children’s additions to IS/JSA.
2002: IS/JSA claims can be suspended for up to 12 weeks for people taking short-term jobs.
2001: Further increases to Child Benefit and to children’s rates in IS/JSA and WFTC/DPTC; Children’s Tax Allowance to replace the
Married Person’s Tax Allowance; introduction of a £100 Jobgrant for people moving from IS/JSA into work after one year on benefit;
an increase in the earnings disregard to £20 per week for lone parents, disabled people and carers on IS/JSA; a four-week run-on
into work of IS mortgage interest payments and a 52-week linking rule for mortgage interest payments; extended payments for HB
and CTC to be made automatically for first four weeks in work.
1999: National Minimum Wage (April); reduction in NICs and starting rate of income tax (April); increase in Child Benefit for oldest
child (April); replacement of Family Credit by Working Families Tax Credit and Disabled Person Tax Credit (October).
1998: Changes to ‘linking rules’ for lone parents and disabled claimants, so that they can return to benefits if necessary (October);
removal of 16 hours’ limit on voluntary work for IB recipients (October); lone-parent benefits run on, allowing lone parents to
continue receiving IS/JSA for two weeks in work and Housing Benefit/Council Tax Benefit for four weeks (October).
Table 2 Services and benefits to support employment
Keeping track of welfare reform
New Deal for Communities
the twinning of a senior Whitehall official with each NDC partnership
the identification of issues on which the cross-departmental Policy Action Teams can offer advice and support to the pathfinders
the identification and signposting of sources of expert advice
the provision of guidance and advice through the Internet
the development of a database of key contacts
the setting up of regular meetings with representatives of NDC partnerships.
In 12 areas, to develop local health strategies through partnerships between the NHS, local authorities, community and voluntary
groups, and the private sector.
Health Action Zones
The initiative aims to help the long-term unemployed, particularly those with multiple social problems, to enhance their
employability in order to obtain sustainable employment or self-employment. Prototypes were implemented in five areas in
February 1998. Glasgow Development Agency (2000) reports on these prototypes. Fully fledged EZs will be implemented in 15 areas
from April 2000 with a budget of £112m over two years. These EZs will be operated by a mixture of public/private partnerships.
Jobseekers in the EZ will be able to access Personal Job Accounts worth up to £5,000 to help them find jobs, gain skills or set up in
self-employment. They will have access to a Personal Adviser and there will be a three months’ gateway, followed by up to six
months in an ES training scheme or intermediate labour market programme. Participation is compulsory and some groups (disabled
people, returners to work, lone-parents, ex-offenders) are eligible from the first day of unemployment.
Employment Zones (EZs)
The government has set aside £800m over three years to support the initiative. Funding will be channelled to partners by
Government Offices for the Regions in the form of NDC grants, or via the Housing Corporation as a Social Housing Grant and
Supported Housing Management Grant. At the same time, partnerships will be expected to encourage private investment and look
for opportunities to make use of European Funding.
•
•
•
•
•
•
The aim of the New Deal for Communities Pathfinders is to tackle multiple deprivation in the poorest areas. The initiative will
target money on 17 deprived neighbourhoods to tackle worklessness, improve health, fight crime and raise educational standards.
Other objectives include improving the physical environment, neighbourhood management, local services and facilities, whilst
building the capacity of the local community, tackling racial disadvantage and encouraging enterprise. The DETR are responsible
for co-ordination and are putting the following mechanisms in place:
Table 3 Area-based measures to support employment
Background and context
9
Keeping track of welfare reform
package is operational. In addition, teasing out
the specific impact of the New Deal
programmes in the context of this ‘rich matrix of
innovative policies being implemented by
central government to operate at both national
and local level’ (Walker, 2000) is a complex task.
Evaluating the New Deal
The government is collecting two main types of
information in order to evaluate the New Deal
programmes.4 First, there is an extensive
programme of monitoring, based on the New
Deal Evaluation Database, established and
maintained by the ES. So far, the database
covers the NDYP, NDLTU (national
programme) and the NDLP, with the other
programmes to be added. It includes
information on individuals, their labour market
experience before and after New Deal, and their
experience on the New Deal. It provides the
information for the monthly Statistical First
Release series, which gives statistics for the
overall numbers of these groups on New Deal,
leavers by destination and ethnic minority
statistics and various other data. This material is
made available via the Internet, as well as by
more conventional means. Table 4 shows the
type of ‘performance indicators’ involved, as yet
in most detail in respect of young people.
Second, there are the evaluation studies
commissioned by the ES and DSS, and carried
out by a range of independent research
organisations. The ES has generally taken the
lead in this but the DSS has responsibility for
the prototype NDLP, the NDDP (pilot and
national) and the ONE programme. In Northern
Ireland, there are separate evaluations taking
Table 4 New Deal core performance measures
The following are planned:
1
The numbers of New Deal participants and the proportion of each cohort moving into
(i) unsubsidised jobs, (ii) subsidised jobs and (iii) all jobs.
2
The numbers of participants and the proportion of each monthly cohort moving from the
gateway and each of the options into unsubsidised jobs.
3
The unit costs of the outcomes covered at above.
4
The number of participants and the proportion of each monthly cohort remaining in jobs 13
weeks, six, 12 or 18 months after leaving New Deal, as measured by the renewal or otherwise of
claims for JSA or other benefits.
5
The numbers and proportions of participants who are disabled, from ethnic minority
backgrounds and who are men and women achieving the outcomes above.
6
The numbers of subsidised jobs made available by employers and the level of employer
satisfaction.
7
The level of satisfaction among participating young people.
8
The number and level of qualifications achieved by New Deal participants.
9
The number of participants and the proportion of each monthly cohort leaving the New Deal for
known destinations.
Source:
10
http/:www
.dfee.gov.uk/ndimprove/
Background and context
place and there is also a separate NI New Deal
Evaluation Database (Rogers, 1999).
The evaluations of the various programmes
broadly follow the same basic model, which was
originally devised for the evaluation of the
NDYP (Hall and Reid, 1998). This has three
main strands:
• the macro impact: examining the impact
on overall unemployment levels and
sustainable employment; effects on
wages, tax revenues, benefit receipt, etc;
cost–benefit analyses
• the micro impact: the effects on
participants, employers and those
involved in delivering the programmes
• the quality of the different delivery
arrangements, examining the quality of
the service, of the training and of
partnership arrangements.
Walker (2000) summarises these as
summative (examining impacts), formative
(examining processes) and didactic (identifying
good practice and learning lessons). Each
requires a different methodological approach.
The macro analyses use econometric modelling
based on survey, administrative and other
background data, for example on labour market
trends. The micro evaluations have usually
included both quantitative and qualitative
interviews, with both individuals (participants
and non-participants) and employers, as well as
information from the New Deal Evaluation
Database. Often these involve some panel
element, so that individuals are followed over
time, but typically the time periods are fairly
short, measured in months rather than years.
The most common methods for examining
delivery issues have been case studies, using a
range of qualitative and quantitative information.
Much of the material published so far relates
to the pilot/prototype programmes and these
have focused in particular on the micro impacts
and delivery issues. These are summarised in
the Appendix. The NDYP reports cover various
aspects of the evaluation, both pilot and
national, with the majority of these based on
qualitative data. The NDLP prototype
evaluation includes both quantitative and
qualitative data, and there is one study so far of
the national programme. The NDDP report also
includes both quantitative and qualitative data
from the first six pilot areas. The NDPU and
NDLTU reports are qualitative or case study
only. These reports form the basis of our
discussion in the following chapters.
Evaluating the evaluations
The programme of evaluation for the New Deal
is the most detailed and extensive government
policy-related research programme carried out
in the UK in recent years, costing in the region
of £10 million over five years (including the
establishment of the New Deal Evaluation
Database). It reflects a strong government
commitment that has been given to ‘evidencebased’ policy and practice, which is also being
applied in many other areas of policy. For
example, Table 5 summarises the evaluation
strategies for other key welfare-to-work
programmes (ONE, WFTC and DPTC), showing
a similar mix of evaluating processes and
outcomes.
The evaluation programme is a compromise
between various competing demands and
agendas. There is something of a tension
11
12
Sources: HC Select Committee on Social Security (1999) The One Service Pilots; Inland Revenue (1999a) Evaluation Programme for the
WFTC; Inland Revenue (1999b) Evaluation Programme for the DPTC.
The aims of the evaluation are to assess the impact on work incentives and on poverty; to estimate employment additionality; to
examine impacts on the type of work obtained and training; and to examine the costs to business and the relationship with other
government programmes. The research design will include drawing upon existing data (including the Low Income Household
surveys); analysis of administrative data; quantitative and qualitative research with recipients and those involved in delivery; a
survey of eligible non-claimants; and adding a subset of questions to the WFTC employer survey. Results will be published between
2000 and 2001.
The Disabled Persons Tax Credit
The aims of the evaluation are to assess the effects on family income and labour market participation. It will also consider effects on
child-care arrangements; on employer behaviour; on take-up and choice of delivery mechanism (i.e. through wage packet or not).
There will also be an assessment of the effectiveness and costs of delivery. The research design will involve special analysis of the
DSS Survey of Low Income Households, a panel study involving three interviews between 1999 and 2001; qualitative research with
recipients and those involved in delivery; and employer surveys. There will also be ongoing monitoring of administrative statistics.
Results will be published between 2000 and 2001.
The Working Families Tax Credit
The aims of the evaluation are (1) to test the delivery of the ONE service and its variants; and (2) to test the effectiveness of the
different variants in improving the quantity and quality of the labour market participation of people of working age. The research
design will involve comparisons between the different delivery variants; between pilot and non-pilot areas, and between the noncompulsory and compulsory phases. This will include both quantitative and qualitative methods and a cost–benefit analysis based
on the ONE evaluation database. Results will be published between 2000 and 2001.
The ONE service pilots
Table 5 Other related evaluation programmes: ONE, WFTC and DPTC
Keeping track of welfare reform
Background and context
between the need for information on outcomes
and the wish to learn lessons for future
development. As Walker (2000) points out, ‘the
pilots being employed in Britain are not truly
intended as comprehensive tests of policy.
Rather they are prototypes or pathfinders in
which results from pilot implementation are
used to shape national implementation.’ The
strong emphasis on case study and qualitative
work at the start of the evaluations reflects this
aim of collecting data that can be used to
evaluate how the programmes are working in
practice and what lessons can be learned from
this. However, this may not be the best test of
longer-term outcomes. Prototypes are limited in
time, they may attract more enthusiastic
providers and easier-to-place clients, and they
are often better resourced than national
programmes.
In addition, in order to measure impact, it is
necessary to identify the ‘counterfactual’ – what
would have happened in the absence of the
programme – which is far from straightforward.
There are two main alternatives for assessing
this. Experimental designs involve random
assignment of individuals to either ‘treatment’
or ‘control’ groups and then comparing
outcomes between these two groups. Nonexperimental designs also involve comparing
participants with non-participants, but using
either before-and-after samples or samples in
different, but matching, geographical areas. The
relative merits of these approaches are much
debated and the former have been used
extensively in the US, much less so in Europe
(Auspos and Riccio, 1999). In these New Deal
evaluations, random assignment to programmes
has not generally been used, for a combination
of political, ethical and technical reasons
(Walker, 2000). Instead, there has been a range of
quasi-experimental methods, for example,
comparing matched areas, comparing
participants and non-participants within pilot
areas, comparing early and late participants,
and using national data to construct comparison
groups.
The next three chapters summarise the
evidence available so far, starting by discussing
labour market outcomes and then examining
the impact on individuals and delivery issues.
13
2 Labour market effects
Although the UK has been a relatively low
spender on active labour market policies
compared with many other European countries
(OECD, 1997), the New Deal programmes were
not introduced on to a previously blank sheet.
Over the past two decades at least there has
been a steady stream of programmes and
subsidies intended to help unemployed people
move from unemployment into work. These
have included 14 employment subsidy
programmes and 11 government training
programmes (Hasluck, 1999a, 1999b). Gardiner
(1997) estimated that there were 42 ‘welfare-towork’ programmes operating in the UK just
prior to the introduction of the New Deal
programmes. In addition, in some areas, local
welfare-to-work programmes have been
developed, involving local authorities,
voluntary organisations and the private sector
(Campbell et al., 1998; Turok and Webster, 1998;
Sanderson et al., 1999). The New Deal
programmes are therefore being implemented
in the context of existing national and local,
public and non-public, provision. Here, we first
summarise the information available from the
Statistical First Releases, tracking participants
through the administrative records.
New Deal participation and exits
Just under 440,000 young people had been
through the NDYP by February 2000 (23 months
into the national programme), of whom 72 per
cent were men, 13 per cent were people with a
disability and 14 per cent were from non-white
ethnic groups.
About 129,000 people – 30 per cent – were
still on the programme in January and of these
50 per cent were in the gateway, 34 per cent
14
were on one of the options and 16 per cent were
in the follow-through. People with disabilities
were less likely to be on the gateway (44 per
cent) and more likely to be on an option (38 per
cent) or in the follow-through (18 per cent).
People from ethnic minority groups were most
likely to be in the gateway (55 per cent) and less
likely to be on an option (30 per cent) or in the
follow-through (15 per cent).
For those on options, the largest group was
in full-time education and training (41 per cent).
Women were more likely than men to be on this
option (45 per cent compared with 39 per cent)
and so were people from ethnic minority groups
(56 per cent). The next largest group was the
employment option, with 24 per cent. Disabled
people (22 per cent) and those from ethnic
minorities (17 per cent) were less likely to be on
the employment option. The voluntary and
environmental options each had about 16/17
per cent, but men were most likely to be on the
environmental option and less likely to be on
the voluntary option, while the reverse was true
for women. Indeed, women were rarely on the
environmental option (4 per cent), nor were
people from ethnic minorities (7 per cent).
About 308,000 people had left the NDYP by
February 2000 and of these leavers about 41 per
cent had gone into employment, about 12 per
cent had transferred to other benefits, 19 per
cent had left for other known reasons and 28 per
cent for unknown reasons. Those who leave
from the gateway are more likely to go into
employment (46 per cent) than those who leave
from an option (36 per cent) or from the followthrough (31 per cent). Among the options, those
who leave from subsidised employment are the
most likely to go into work (41 per cent
compared with 33 per cent from education, 37
Labour market effects
per cent from voluntary work and 34 per cent
from environmental work). A special study of
the leavers to unknown destinations found that
they were similar to other ND participants and
that most had left to start work or a course, or
because family and health circumstances had
changed (Hales and Collins, 1999).
The Statistical First Release data count
employment outcomes in various ways,
including both those who have left the New
Deal for employment and those still on the New
Deal working in subsidised employment.
Counting everyone who has found a job
through the NDYP, about 200,000 people had
found jobs by January 2000. Counting just those
who have left the New Deal for employment
lasting at least 13 weeks, then about 146,000 had
moved into these ‘sustained’ jobs. This is
equivalent to about 34 per cent of all
participants, lower for women (31 per cent) and
ethnic minorities (27 per cent).
Around 238,000 people had been through
the NDLTU over the first 20 months, of whom
84 per cent were men, 19 per cent were people
with limiting disabilities and 10 per cent were
from non-white ethnic groups. About 28 per
cent were aged over 50. About 86,000 people –
36 per cent – were still on the programme at the
end of January 2000 and most (81 per cent) of
these were receiving assessment and support
from Personal Advisers. About 15 per cent were
in work-based placements, either subsidised
employment (5 per cent) or work-based learning
(9 per cent).
About 151,000 people had left the
programme by February 2000. Of those who
had left, about 16 per cent had gone into
employment, about 5 per cent had left for
known reasons and about 12 per cent for
unknown reasons. However, many of those who
had left the programme had gone to other
benefits (13 per cent) or had returned to JSA/IS
(54 per cent).
Counting everyone who has found a job
through the NDLTU, about 38,000 people had
found jobs by February 2000. Counting just
those who have left the New Deal for
employment lasting at least 13 weeks, then
about 32,000 had moved into these ‘sustained’
jobs. This is equivalent to about 13 per cent of
all participants, the same for men and women
and ethnic minorities.
Turning to the voluntary programmes, about
133,000 lone parents had attended an initial
NDLP by February 2000 (i.e. over 16 months); 95
per cent of these were women, 4 per cent had
limiting disabilities and 7 per cent came from
non-white ethnic groups. Just over half (54 per
cent) came from the target group, that is women
with school-age children and, among these, 37
per cent were ‘early’ starts, people who came
forward before being invited to interview. A
substantial number of lone-parent participants
are therefore opting into the programme from
outside the target group.
There were about 70,000 NDLP participants
at February 2000, of whom 64 per cent were
seeing Personal Advisers, 11 per cent were in
education/training and 25 per cent were
employed and continuing to receive support
from Personal Advisers. Of those who had left
after the initial interview, 39 per cent left for
employment, 43 per cent remained on Income
Support, 6 per cent declined to join, 5 per cent
left for unknown destinations. Women were
more likely to have left for employment than
men (40 per cent compared with 35 per cent).
Lone parents from ethnic minority groups were
15
Keeping track of welfare reform
much less likely to have left for employment (27
per cent).
These data do not distinguish between
sustained and unsustained employment. They
do show, however, that many lone parents
continued to receive NDLP support when in
work. In total, 40,270 lone parents were in
employment (34 per cent of participants),
including 1,380 who had increased their hours
of work and 33,870 who had found new jobs.
Around two-fifths – 44 per cent – of these were
still receiving in-work support from Personal
Advisers. This suggests that more help is
required by this group and/or Personal
Advisers in the NDLP were more willing or able
to offer such help than Personal Advisers for
other groups.
The numbers going through the NDDP and
NDPU are still relatively small. Over the first
three months of the NDPU, about 1,400 people
were interviewed and 6 per cent of them found
jobs. About one-quarter went into education/
training, which could indicate a high degree of
interest in training among early participants to
this programme (TUC, 1999). This is the first
time partners of unemployed claimants have
been able to get access to training through the
ES. Over about 15 months of the NDDP
innovative programmes, just over 10,000 people
had initial Personal Adviser interviews and
around 6,600 had drawn up personal action
plans. About 3,000 had been accepted on to
innovative programmes and just over 2,000 had
found jobs – a quarter of all those interviewed
(TUC, 2000).
Thus, there are some differences in both the
use and outcomes of the different New Deal
programmes. The participants in the NDYP and
NDLTU are more likely to be men than women,
16
but women are very much the majority in the
NDLP and NDPU. Reflecting the target groups
from which they are drawn, the NDYP and
NDLTU both include an over-representation of
people from non-white ethnic groups and
people with disabilities compared with the
population as a whole. In the NDYP, it is not
possible for participants to return to benefits
(there is ‘no fifth option’) although some do
move on to other benefits. However, around
two-fifths of NDLTU and NDLP participants
return to JSA/IS. It is striking that many lone
parents from outside the target group take part
in the programme and also that many of those
who find jobs continue to have contact with
Personal Advisers.
Employment additionality
How far these employment results can be
directly attributed to New Deal participation
requires some way of estimating what would
have happened in the absence of the
programme. Would those who found jobs have
found them anyway (deadweight)? Have they
simply pushed other workers or other
unemployed people out (substitution)? Have
the employers who have taken them on, often
with subsidies, gained some economic
advantage over their competitors
(displacement)? What is the overall impact on
employment, taking account of all these factors
(additionality)? As Hasluck (1999a, p. vi) points
out, deadweight is generally regarded as
undesirable but substitution and displacement
are not necessarily so: ‘if the object of the
programme is to give a target group access to
jobs they would not otherwise have, then
substitution (or even displacement) could be
Labour market effects
said to be the goal of the programme’.
As yet, there are only preliminary estimates
of the outflows from unemployment and of the
macro-economic effects of the NDYP. The
estimates of net employment outcomes suggest
positive results from both the Pathfinder
programmes (Anderton et al., 1999b) and the
first year of the national programme (Anderton
et al., 1999a). Unemployment has been falling
since the early 1990s but, since 1998, when the
NDYP started, youth unemployment has been
falling more rapidly than unemployment rates
for other age groups, which suggests a positive
impact of the programme. Taking a range of
factors into account, Anderton et al. (1999a)
conclude that the first year of the NDYP
reduced youth unemployment by about 30,000
compared with what it otherwise would have
been. They estimate deadweight at
approximately 50 per cent, but suggest that
there is little evidence of recycling (i.e.
circulating young people back into
unemployment) or substitution. Overall, they
estimate that 250,000 young people might be
moved into employment over the four years
planned for the programme and that this should
make it more or less self-financing over that
time.
Looking at changes over the first two years
of the NDYP, Hasluck (2000a) points out that the
pattern of exits has changed over that time. At
the start of the programme, more people left
during the gateway but, later, more have gone
on to take part in the options. Thus, young
people are staying in the programme longer,
perhaps indicating that there are ‘an increasing
proportion of really disadvantaged clients who
require the whole NDYP programme to help
them overcome their barriers to employment’
(Hasluck, 2000a, p. 52). He also points to the
uneven outcomes by gender, ethnicity and
region. Men are more likely than women to go
into employment and those from ethnic
minorities are the least likely to do so. There
were also substantial regional variations, with
the proportions going into work ranging from
47 per cent in London and the South East and
the West Midlands to 57 per cent in the South
West. Who you are and where you live seem to
make a difference to NDYP outcomes, as they
do to employment prospects more generally.
Positive conclusions were also drawn about
the impact of the NDLP on the movements of
lone parents off Income Support and into work
(Hasluck et al., 2000; Hales et al., 2000b). The
NDLP evaluation found that the number of lone
parents claiming Income Support fell more
rapidly in the eight prototype areas than in six
comparison areas and that the difference was
particularly marked in the case of the target
group (lone parents with children aged five and
over). The estimated size of this effect was about
3.3 percentage points (‘small but positive’).
Those who joined the NDLP earlier were more
likely to have found jobs than those who joined
later, suggesting that employment outcomes
may take some time to become apparent. It was
estimated that 75–80 per cent of lone parents
who found jobs through the NDLP would have
found jobs anyway. But, even with this level of
deadweight, the programme was still estimated
to have been close to breaking even in terms of
cost. The researchers suggest that the impact of
the programme could have been greater if it had
been dealing in more depth with a smaller
group of people. It is also important to
remember that the other policies to help lone
parents – the WFTC, the child-care policies –
17
Keeping track of welfare reform
were not in place at this time and, when fully
available, these policies will provide additional
support for employment.
There are no estimates of the employment
impacts of the NDDP and indeed these
estimates of the employment impacts of the
NDYP and NDLP are at a very early stage.
However, the results so far are as good, or
better, than might be expected from previous
experience with labour market programmes and
with the evidence from other countries
(Gardiner, 1997; Auspos and Riccio, 1999;
18
Hasluck, 1999a). Gardiner (1997), for example,
found employment effects of between 2 and 28
per cent for the schemes she reviewed.
Although only a minority of participants have
so far been able to find jobs, nevertheless the
New Deal employment effects are positive and
the programmes broadly self-financing. There is
little evidence so far of significant substitution
or displacement. The next two chapters examine
in more detail the ways in which the
programmes have operated and how people
have responded to them.
3 The impact on individuals: the
compulsory programmes
In this chapter, we explore the impact of the
various New Deal programmes on the
individuals involved, starting with the two
compulsory programmes for which results are
available: the NDYP and the NDLTU.
The New Deal for Young People
Enhancing ‘employability’ is central to the
NDYP objectives. Hillage and Pollard (1998)
suggest that the concept of employability has
four main elements. It includes the assets that
people have to offer to employers, how they
deploy these assets, how they present themselves
to employers and the context in which they are
seeking work, including their personal
characteristics (e.g. skills, experience, health,
attitudes) and external factors (e.g. local labour
market conditions, recruitment practices, access
to transport). Thus, employability is ‘the
capacity to move self-sufficiently within the
labour market to realise potential through
sustainable employment’ (Hillage and Pollard,
1998, p. xi). The NDYP is not simply about
getting young people into jobs but also about
enhancing their employability. This is seen as
particularly important in the context of a more
flexible labour market, where the most
employable people are those who can change
and adapt, and develop new skills as required.
Before considering the impact of the New Deal
on the young people who have taken part, we
first provide a context by briefly considering the
changing nature of the youth labour market.
Young people and the labour market
The number of young people aged 16 to 24 fell
from around eight million in the mid-1980s to
around six million in the late 1990s.
Nevertheless, youth unemployment remains
relatively high. In summer 1999, using the
International Labour Organization (ILO)
unemployment measure, the seasonally
adjusted unemployment rate for all people of
working age was 6.5 per cent, rising to 24 per
cent for 16–17 year olds and 12.3 per cent for 18–
24 year olds (ONS, 1999). These high levels of
youth unemployment are explained by a
combination of structural change, especially the
decline of manufacturing, and changing
employer skill needs. The key changes to the
youth labour market identified by Hasluck
(1999b) can be summarised under four main
headings:
1
A stretching of the young labour market:
during the 1960s and 1970s, most young
people entered the labour market
between the ages of about 16 and 19.
Now, a substantial proportion remain in
full-time education and so do not enter
the labour market until they are in their
early twenties or even later. The transition
from full-time education to full-time
employment is increasingly protracted
and complex, and there is some evidence
that young men in particular feel poorly
prepared for this but are nevertheless
reluctant to seek, and take, advice (Lloyd,
1999).
2
A polarisation between different groups of
young people: this is a combined age and
19
Keeping track of welfare reform
qualifications polarisation. Those young
people who are staying in full-time
education past the age of 18 are gaining
qualifications and are able to enter
relatively high-paying and secure
employment. Those young people who
are leaving school at 16 and who lack
qualifications often enter low-paid
employment and are more likely to
experience unemployment.
3
Training and employment are increasingly
closely intertwined: not only have
government youth training programmes
expanded significantly, but most young
people who find jobs also take part in
training. In 1998, over 70 per cent of 16–25
year olds recruited by employers also
entered training programmes, as part of
their employment. Getting access to
training places is thus an important part
of entry to employment.
4
Employment is increasingly concentrated into
a few sectors, differentiated by gender: for
young men, the main sectors of
employment are distribution and
construction, and the jobs are most
commonly unskilled, sales and craft. For
young women, the main sectors are
distribution or other services and the jobs
are most commonly sales, clerical and
related occupations.
Meadows (2000), reviewing the evidence
from a number of recent studies, suggests that
the majority of young people make the
transition from education to employment in a
relatively straightforward way. However, there
are a minority, mainly young men, who are very
20
poorly prepared for this transition. Meadows
suggests that these fall into two main groups.
The first group are those who ‘drift’ between
unemployment and short-term jobs and who
lack direction for the future. These young
people are likely to experience a broken
employment record, including spells of
unemployment, and often work in relatively
low-paid jobs in the service sector. Second, there
are young people with multiple disadvantages
and problems who are likely to require
substantial help, not only to improve basic
skills, but also to address serious problems such
as substance abuse and homelessness.
Previous research has found that the young
people who face the highest barriers to
sustained employment tend to be: men rather
than women; Pakistani or Bangladeshi more
than other ethnic groups; living in social
housing or homeless; lacking skills and
qualifications; lacking work experience; with
health problems or disabled; without a driving
licence; living alone rather than with parents;
and unwilling to be flexible about different
types of work (Hasluck, 1999b; Stafford et al.,
1999; Walker et al., 1999). The research also
shows that these factors are not independent of
each other. On the contrary:
… there is a considerable degree of
interdependence between the factors associated
with poor prospects for employment … [some
young people] are in the centre of a nexus of
factors that are all associated with reduced
employability and this effect may be greater than
the simple sum of the separate risk factors. The
combined effect of single risk factors may act in a
multiplicative fashion on overall employability
rather than in an additive fashion. (Hasluck,
1999b, pp. 42–3)
The impact on individuals: the compulsory programmes
This suggests that the NDYP will be dealing
with young people with a range of needs, some
relatively easy to help but others with complex
problems and multiple needs.
External factors also play a crucial role in
providing, or not providing, employment
opportunities for young people. Youth
unemployment is highly concentrated in
particular geographical areas and, although
there has been substantial growth in jobs as a
whole, these new jobs are not spread evenly
across the country. Some commentators have
argued that geographical variations in
unemployment and labour demand present a
serious challenge to the whole New Deal
approach (Turok and Webster, 1998; Webster
and Edge, 1999; Martin et al., 2000). Webster and
Edge (1999, pp. 51–2) argue that: ‘… the Welfare
to Work programme implies pushing all
workless groups into jobs in local labour
markets that are already experiencing a
substantial over-supply of labour. It is difficult
to see how policy can succeed in these
circumstances.’ Furthermore, even where jobs
are available, employer recruitment practices
play a significant role in determining who gets
access to employment and some employers treat
young people with a degree of wariness. Longterm unemployed young people are particularly
likely to be seen as a high-risk group by
employers.
Thus, young people face barriers to
employment that are created by a combination
of their personal characteristics and attitudes,
their educational and employment experience,
where they live, and how they are perceived by
employers. The cumulative impact of these is
likely to be greater than the sum of their parts.
Joining the NDYP
One of the conditions for eligibility for the
NDYP is six months’ registered unemployment,
with early entry possible for particularly
disadvantaged groups. Thus, the young people
joining the programme are those who have
already experienced some problems in finding a
place in the labour market. As described in the
previous section, about seven in ten NDYP
participants are men, about one in seven are
from ethnic minorities and about the same
proportion report a work-limiting disability. The
qualitative studies give a fairly consistent
picture of the characteristics of the young
people. For example, of the sample of 87 young
people taking part in NDYP options (Woodfield
et al., 1999) about half had left school at the
minimum school-leaving age and overall about
a fifth had no qualifications. Four main types of
employment history were identified. At one end
were those who had never been in full-time
work (about a third) and at the other were those
with stable employment records (about a
quarter). In between were the job mobile (about
a fifth, with only short spells of unemployment),
and those in and out of work (about a quarter,
where spells of unemployment were longer than
spells in work).
The barriers to work and factors affecting job
readiness of the NDYP target group are
summarised in Table 6. This is based on the
analysis by Walker et al. (1999) of JSA recipients
in the NDYP target group and on Atkinson’s
(1999) review of the first eight months of the
NDYP. This suggests that positive attitudes to
work exist alongside pessimistic views about
the chances of finding work, but also that some
young people lack the confidence and practical
skills to search for work effectively. In general,
21
Keeping track of welfare reform
Table 6 Barriers to work: NDYP target group
NYDP target group are likely to have
NDYP target group face barriers to work
Positive attitudes to work
Pessimistic attitudes to their chances of finding
work
Concerns about the financial implications of
moving from benefits to work
Flexible attitudes to pay and conditions they
would be willing to accept
Concerns about benefit sanctions if they did not
follow job-seeking requirements
Experience of looking for work via Jobcentres
and other formal means rather than through
informal contacts
Experience of studying/training while claiming
JSA
Lack of skills, qualifications and work
experience
Low job-search resources (lack of transport, no
access to telephone, lack of permanent
address, limited financial resources)
Psychological disadvantages (lack of selfconfidence and low motivation)
High competition for jobs
Employer attitudes (discrimination against
young people, specific race and disability
discrimination)
Source: Walker et al. (1999); Atkinson (1999).
young people are motivated to work although,
as the qualitative studies show, aspirations to
work vary quite widely. For example, Legard
and Ritchie (1999) and Woodfield et al. (1999)
identify five groups: those with vocational/
career orientation; those who were job oriented
and clear about the type of job they wanted;
those who were job oriented but unclear about
the type of job; those who were job oriented and
not fussy about the type of job; and those who
were disinterested in work. The latter included
those who were most pessimistic about their
chances of finding work, those who had
experienced repeated rejection and those who
had got into the habit of non-working.
The main barriers to work – identified both
by the young people and by the Personal
Advisers – centred around lack of skills and
work experience, low or inappropriate job
search, psychological factors (including lack of
self-confidence and lack of realistic goals), the
22
level and type of job opportunities available in
the local labour market, and employer attitudes.
In addition, the qualitative studies highlight the
extent of multiple barriers and special needs,
the issue of low pay for young people, and
access to and costs of transport. They also show
that, for many of the young people, job search
presents particular problems, including
problems with CVs and application forms, and
lack of confidence in interviews.
The first stage of the NDYP is the gateway
period, which lasts up to four months. The aim
of the gateway is to help people find jobs, to
offer careers and vocational guidance and, for
those who do not find jobs during this period, to
select and prepare for one of the four options.
Two studies have focused specifically on the
experience of the gateway (Legard et al., 1998,
on the pilot gateway and Legard and Richie,
1999, on the national gateway) and they show a
similar picture, with some differences of
The impact on individuals: the compulsory programmes
emphasis in the national programme. A key part
of the gateway and reactions to it relate to the
Personal Advisers and, indeed, ‘the quality of
the relationship with the personal adviser is
fundamental to the young people’s appraisal of
the Gateway’ (Legard and Ritchie, 1999, p. iv).
Most of the young people reported positive
relationships with the Advisers and valued their
friendliness, flexibility, the interest they took,
and the information and advice they provided.
There was a very strong positive response
where the young people felt that their needs
were being identified and met. Those who took
a negative view felt that Advisers were not
meeting their needs or were trying to push them
in directions they did not want to follow. There
was also some concern that Advisers were not
always picking up on special or multiple needs.
A range of activities took place in the
gateway, including help with job search, careers
advice and short training courses. Many
participants reported an increase in confidence
and self-esteem and this helped to re-motivate
them towards seeking work as, somewhat more
negatively, did the fear of losing benefits. For
some, however, there was something of a feeling
of marking time while waiting to get into one of
the options. There was some evidence that, as
the end of the gateway period approached,
some young people felt they were being
pressurised, either to move into work or into
one of the options. There was also some
evidence that some young people were
unrealistic in their expectations and that ‘an
important reason for the failure to achieve a
greater level of placements into unsubsidised
jobs was a fundamental mismatch between
client perceptions of their own job readiness and
the level of readiness required for the job to
which the client aspires’ (Hasluck, 2000a, p. 33).
The point of moving from the gateway to the
options was one of the most problematic in the
process. This is where the highest levels of
dissatisfaction were reported, arising when the
young people felt that they had not had enough
time to explore choices and make an informed
decision, and when they felt that they had not
been fully involved in the decision-making
process. This could colour their attitude to
taking part in the option stage and was also a
point where dissatisfied young people were
likely to leave the programme. The way in
which young people moved through the
gateway and options tended to change over the
two years, reflecting differences both in the
characteristics of the participants and
operational factors (Hasluck, 2000a). In the early
stages, many young people left for jobs during
the gateway and did not move on to the options
stage. As time went on, people spent longer on
the gateway and were more likely to move on to
an option. This probably reflects less jobreadiness, and greater needs for assistance,
among later cohorts.
For most young people, there was a clear
hierarchy in perception of the four options.
Subsidised employment was placed at the top
(generally seen as most valuable for providing
work experience), followed by full-time
education and training (valued by those who
identified lack of skills as a key issue). The
voluntary sector and environmental options
were the least highly valued, except by those
who had a high level of personal commitment
to working in these areas (and that also could
lead to problems as many others on these
options were less than enthusiastic). People on
these last two options generally kept looking for
23
Keeping track of welfare reform
work. This ordering of preferences broadly
reflects the ordering of employment outcomes,
so the young people seem to have been quite
realistic in their views. Dissatisfaction was often
high among those who did not get the option
they wanted, or who felt coerced into one they
did not want. Those most likely to enter the
subsidised employment option were those who
were the most work ready and young people
without skills and experience were least likely
to enter this option. Young people from ethnic
minority groups were also substantially less
likely to go into this option and, since they were
no less likely than others to be submitted for job
vacancies, this must reflect a degree of employer
prejudice.
Those who did get the option they wanted
often reported very positive responses:
Successful Option placements were found to
have improved qualifications, occupational skills
and to have increased individuals’ work
experience. In turn, work experience helped
young people to improve their interpersonal and
workplace skills. Participation in an Option was
also found to increase personal confidence and
motivation. (Woodfield et al., 2000, p. iii)
However, there were problem areas, in
particular issues relating to the training received
and to the financial support offered. There was a
general view that the training was not as good
as it should be – not available, not well targeted,
badly organised, not enough places or choices –
and this was especially true for the voluntary
and environmental options. Many of those in
the subsided employment option (who received
wages as set by the employer) and on the
voluntary/environmental options (who either
received a wage set by the employer or JSA plus
24
£15.38 per week) said they found it hard to
manage and in some cases that they felt
exploited by the low pay they were receiving.
Those in full-time education and training
continued to receive their JSA, with no
additional payments, and this caused problems
and resentment for some.
Relationships with Personal Advisers
changed once the young people moved into
options, and almost all reported reduced
contact. This was fine where there were no
problems but there was also a feeling that the
Adviser should be available to provide help if
problems arose. In general, also, there was some
confusion about the future with most people
unclear about what exactly would happen when
the option ended. The structured approach of
the options seemed to dissipate somewhat when
people moved into the follow-through stage,
which was characterised by a wide range of
approaches (O’Connor et al., 1999). Some of
those who reached the follow-through had
become much more work-focused, others had
changed their minds about what they wanted to
do and others were simply waiting to return to
an option. There were also some who had major
personal problems affecting their NDYP
activities (and their employment chances). The
support received in the follow-through ranged
from almost nothing to very intensive help and
it may be that Personal Advisers need more
guidance – and more time – to work more
effectively with people at this stage.
In Chapter 5, we examine the NDYP from
the perspective of employers and others
involved in training and other support. From
the perspective of the young people, there were
mixed views, but participants were more often
positive than negative. Those who were most
The impact on individuals: the compulsory programmes
positive were those with good relationships
with their Advisers, who felt their needs were
being identified and met, and that they were
improving their employability, particularly
through work experience and training. The
lesson that the labour market requires certain
attitudes, qualifications, experience and skills
seems to be taken to heart by many young
people and they were working hard at
improving their employability. Those who were
least positive reported that they felt pressurised
by their Personal Advisers, that their needs
were not being identified and met, and that they
were not getting any closer to the type of jobs
they wanted. Two potential drop-out points
were at the point of choosing an option and
during what was felt to be an unsatisfactory
option. Problems sometimes resulted from a
mismatch between the expectations of the
young people and the actual opportunities open
to them.
The New Deal for Long-term Unemployed
People
The NDLTU is targeted upon people who have
been unemployed for at least two years, or 12 to
18 months in the pilot areas. Those who took
part in the evaluations included people with a
range of previous labour market experiences
(Legard et al., 2000; Atkinson et al., 2000). At one
extreme were those who had been in long-term
stable jobs before they became long-term
unemployed, often after redundancy or illness.
At the other were people who had hardly
worked full-time at all since leaving school,
apart from casual or temporary work. About
one-third had particular problems, such as
literacy/numeracy or health problems, had
experienced unstable housing including
homelessness, were ex-offenders, or had current
or past drug/alcohol dependency problems.
Most were motivated to work, although some
were discouraged or disillusioned and some
were quite restrictive about what type of work
they would consider. Only a few had no real
interest in working, and caring responsibility
and/or health problems were often part of this.
Prior to taking part, attitudes to the NDLTU
tended to be polarised. On the one hand, many
of these people had been on labour market or
training programmes in the past, and this
tended to lead to a negative attitude (‘just
another scheme’). Some also disliked the fact
that the programme was mandatory. This was
especially true for the older people (who tended
also to be those with more stable employment
histories) and they felt it was ‘humiliating’ to be
made to take part. On the other hand, there
were positive responses from those who felt that
the programme would be able to meet their
needs – in particular help them with job search,
updating their skills and confidence and
presentation.
The perceived barriers to work were similar
to those experienced by the young people – age,
lack of skill and work experience, employer
attitudes, lack of jobs and so on. Among this
group, however, there was ‘extremely wide
range of job readiness, ranging from those who
could, and sometimes did walk into a suitable
job almost from day one, to those with the most
profound, and frequently multiple, problems,
who face an extremely long and difficult route
back to work’ (Atkinson et al., 2000, p. 9).
There were some barriers that were
particularly important for these long-term
unemployed people. Many of these were related
25
Keeping track of welfare reform
to the perceived mismatch between what they
had to offer and what they thought was
required in the labour market. Thus, there were
problems for those with outdated skills and/or
lack of contemporary skills (typing rather than
word-processing, printing rather than desktop
publishing and so on). There were also
problems with specialist skills for which there
was little demand in the local labour market.
Similarly, some felt they were over-qualified for
the jobs available. Many felt that employers
were not interested in them because of their age.
Women returners often felt the barriers they
faced to be ‘virtually insurmountable’. On a
more general level, problems with transport
were very commonly mentioned.
In both the national and pilot NDLTU
programmes, the first step was spending time in
the intensive interview period or the gateway.
The former lasts for up to six months and is the
main element in the national programme. The
latter lasts for about three months and the
nature and content of what is on offer vary
across different pilot programmes. However, in
both cases, the Personal Advisers represent the
main point of contact with the programme and
most people were generally positive in their
responses to this role. Again, the personal
qualities of the Personal Adviser were
important and, for many, the helpfulness and
friendliness of the Advisers ‘was a real change
from their previous experience at the Jobcentres.
The Adviser seemed genuinely interested in
them as an individual’ (Legard et al., 2000, p.
33). Those with low confidence and morale
responded especially well. Advisers who were
perceived as insensitive, authoritarian or only
interested in getting them placed quickly into
work were viewed negatively.
26
However, a friendly manner was not
enough; people also wanted Advisers to be able
to identify and meet their needs, to be able to
provide them with the information they needed
not just about the NDLTU but also about the
labour market more generally, and to be
accurate and efficient. Some preferred older
rather than younger people as their Personal
Advisers, and they wanted privacy and regular
contact with the same individual. Thus, the four
main factors determining how people
responded to the NDLTU Personal Advisers
were: the range of activities they could offer
help with, the nature of the interpersonal
contact, their manner and approach, and their
knowledge and efficiency.
Other forms of help that were received by
those on the national gateway included help
with job search, which was generally positively
received, as was participation in specific
training programmes. However, few
participants received vocational guidance or
basic skills training. There was some feeling that
there was ‘no clear goal’ for the end of the
gateway period; for those who failed to find a
job the only option was a return to JSA. In the
pilot programmes, the 13-week gateway was
followed by a move into the ‘advisory interview
process’. Here, a much wider range of activities
was available, including job-seeking activities,
career and occupational guidance, personal
development, basic skills training, occupational
and vocational training, workplace skills, work
experience and help with special needs/
problems. Taking part in some activity is
compulsory but those with the most positive
reactions were also those who felt they had had
some choice in what they did. The lack of choice
was often a source of frustration. Another
The impact on individuals: the compulsory programmes
source of frustration was the perceived
mismatch between the very detailed and
individualised assessment of their needs, which
people found helpful and supportive, and the
rather routinised and standardised types of
options that they were offered (Atkinson et al.,
2000). Expectations were raised but not always
met.
How the various activities were rated was
very closely related to how well they were felt
to match to needs and whether they offered any
added-value – for example, training which
provided marketable skills, work experience
which opened new doors. The same was true
for those who took part in subsidised
employment, which was valued where it gave
real possibilities to improve work opportunities
but was rated very negatively where it was felt
that it was exploitative. The financial
arrangements were heavily criticised and many
people thought that the employers were
receiving financial subsidies but paying them
inadequately (wages were generally low). There
was something of a tension between the
perceived positive value of getting ‘work
experience’ against the perceived negative value
of ‘working for nothing’. Training, full-time or
on-the-job, was likewise valued when it was
seen to connect to specific needs but criticised
where choice was limited and delivery
inefficient.
Overall, there were a number of positive
outcomes and responses; people valued the help
with job search, help in improving skills,
opportunities for work experience and reestablishing work routines. This boosted selfconfidence. But, on the negative side, some felt
that the programme was nothing new and was
as much a waste of their time as other
programmes had been. Some also felt that the
programme had ‘set back rather than helped
their work related requirements’ (Legard et al.,
2000, p. 67). These tended to be people with
particular vulnerabilities and needs, and for
whom the compulsory nature of the programme
seems most inappropriate. Benefits sanctions,
which could be applied for failure to take part in
various activities, were experienced as very
demoralising and demotivating.
The picture that emerges is of a diverse client
group with a wide variety of needs and
expectations, but which included many people
who were looking for real employment
outcomes and who tended to judge the
programme accordingly. Participation seems to
have been most effective for those who wanted
work but had been disillusioned and stuck. The
NDLTU could offer new suggestions and
opportunities to them. Those who wanted a
specific job, or who did not want to work at all,
were the most negative. The programme did not
meet their needs. Those who were very keen to
find work were divided in their views – if the
programme responded to their needs and
helped them to find work they were positive,
but not otherwise.
The compulsory programmes: emerging
issues
The NDYP and NDLTU are targeted upon
groups who have traditionally been the main
recipients of labour market programmes and the
evidence from these evaluations points both to
what is similar to previous programmes and
what is new about the New Deal. The
characteristics of the participants, their
orientations to the labour market and the
27
Keeping track of welfare reform
barriers they face in getting into work,
especially sustainable work, are broadly
familiar. A small, but not insignificant,
proportion of participants face multiple barriers,
both internal and external, and some are very
pessimistic about their chances of ever finding
work. But, generally, people want to get into
employment and they welcome support that
will meet their needs and help them to do so.
They are not unwilling to participate in
programmes, but need to feel that these are
worthwhile and will help them to meet their
needs. Taking part in options which offer work
experience and/or training is generally seen as
worthwhile, even if pay is low. But taking part
in low-paid work without opportunities for
useful training is often seen as exploitative since
the advantage is seen as mainly accruing to the
employer, or indeed to the government, in terms
of the political benefit of keeping
unemployment down. Complaints about the
type, nature and quality of the training on offer
were, as in previous labour market
programmes, one of the main sources of
dissatisfaction. Another was a lack of clarity
about goals, once participation in options was
over and if no job was in sight.
Compulsion is not unfamiliar to these
groups and the qualitative data showed that
views about compulsion and about the use of
sanctions were mixed, for both younger and
older workers. Fear of benefit loss did seem to
help to re-motivate some of the younger people.
The older workers tended to feel insulted by
this, but some also felt a degree of compulsion
was not inappropriate. Those in favour of
compulsion argued either that people should
not be able to choose not to work, or that longterm unemployed people needed a stimulus
28
and had to be required to participate otherwise
they would not do so. Those against thought
compulsion was counter-productive and unfair,
or that people would not be motivated if they
were compelled to attend. In general, it was felt
that sanctions should be used selectively and
sparingly. The use of sanctions to compel people
to take part in particular options was unpopular
and many thought that it would be better to
allow people more time to get into an option
which they wanted and which was suitable for
their needs.
The importance that people, especially the
older unemployed workers, attach to being
treated with dignity and respect is not new, nor
is it surprising, but the fact that people felt this
did, in general, happen is rather different from
the past. People commented upon how different
their interactions with the ES were and this was
largely a result of the role played by Personal
Advisers. These were pivotal to how
individuals reacted to the programmes and this
was true for both the young and the older
people. Relationships with Personal Advisers
were very important, and their style and
manner crucial. They could provide new ideas
and information, help boost confidence, point
people towards the help they needed, support
them during training and in employment.
Participants wanted both individual support
and results, and so it was the combination of
personal service and effective help that was
most valued. Those least positive about
participation were those who felt their Adviser
to be pushing them into particular directions,
not offering them real choices and not treating
them with respect. Thus, the New Deal
programmes did seem to be offering these
participants something different from previous
The impact on individuals: the compulsory programmes
labour market programmes. In the next chapter,
we examine the experience of those groups for
whom participation in labour market
programmes was usually a new experience.
29
4 The impact on individuals: the
voluntary programmes
Here, we examine the responses of individuals
to taking part, or being invited to take part, in
the three voluntary programmes in their
prototype phases. We start by summarising key
findings for each programme in turn, focusing
on the responses of participants and nonparticipants, and then we draw out some
comparisons between them.
The New Deal for Disabled People
The response to the opportunity to take part in
the NDDP was somewhat mixed. On the one
hand, many of those who were invited to take
part did not do so – only about 3 per cent of
those who were sent letters of invitation took up
the interview offer. On the other hand, almost
half of those who did participate had either put
themselves forward or been referred by another
agency, and showed a high degree of
commitment to the programme. Thus, the
participants and non-participants were different
in their characteristics, with the former more
likely to be interested in taking up paid work.
Just over half of the participants said they
wanted to work immediately compared with
one in six of non-participants. Half of the nonparticipants said they would never want to
work, mainly because of their impairment or
illness. So participants were more motivated to
work than non-participants and they also
tended to have characteristics that meant they
were better placed for employment: they were
younger, better qualified, more likely to have a
working partner, to have access to transport, to
have had their health problems for shorter
periods, to have been out of work for shorter
30
periods, and to have had previous work
experience.
Motivation to work was clearly a factor in
the decision to participate or not. However, not
all non-participants were actively deciding not
to take part; some simply did not remember
ever receiving any information about the
programme and could perhaps have been
encouraged to participate if further contact
attempts had been made. Those who did take
part generally had positive reasons for doing so
– they wanted to work or get access to training
and felt that the programme could help them.
Few were taking part because they felt coerced
or thought they had to do so, although some did
want reassurances that there would be no
negative consequences if they did not take part.
The reasons for wanting to work were various –
to get an income, to have a purpose in life, to
live a ‘normal’ life, to have social contacts with
workmates, to feel independent and selfsufficient. However, there was a range of
different immediate aspirations and needs
expressed. Some people had quite specific ideas
about what they wanted to do and what help
they needed, while others were much more
vague about both their aims and their needs.
This meant that the Personal Advisers were
dealing with a wide range of people and
differing needs. These included people with
what were seen as rather unrealistic aspirations,
which could cause tensions between what
clients wanted and what Advisers felt could be
achieved.
Most of those who participated felt that they
could find suitable employment but they also
recognised that they faced a number of barriers
The impact on individuals: the voluntary programmes
to work. The most common barriers mentioned
were their disability, health problems, the lack
of suitable jobs, their lack of confidence, their
age and employer attitudes. There were also
concerns about the financial implications of
working. The factors that they thought could
make work easier for them included a flexible
job, work that does not demand physical
strength and work that is not stressful. Concerns
about health were wide ranging – coping with
pain and exhaustion, the effects of medication,
needing to take time off for treatment, the
unpredictability of some conditions, problems
with concentration – all these presented
challenges to work, especially full-time work.
There was some feeling that employers were
unsympathetic to their needs and would
generally prefer to employ people without such
problems (see Chapter 5 for a discussion of
employer attitudes).
Thus, there was quite a range of ‘workreadiness’, even just among the participants,
more so if all of the potential client group are
included. Among the participants, six main
groups were identified:
1
Those who had identified a specific job,
were confident and saw no major barriers
to work. They mainly wanted financial
advice.
2
Those who had identified a specific job,
but had concerns about their ability to
work because of their fluctuating health
problems, including mental health
problems.
3
Those who were actively seeking work,
but felt that there were few suitable jobs
for them and that employers’ attitudes
were against them.
4
Those who were actively seeking training,
who felt their lack of qualifications was
their largest barrier to work.
5
Those who were a long way away from
the labour market and who were anxious
about their ability to work. They
perceived high barriers and had no clear
ideas how to overcome these.
6
Those who were a long way away from
the labour market, with considerable
concerns about their health, who were
mainly engaged in domestic activities and
were not sure how they could move
closer to work.
As Stafford et al. (1999) note (p. 160): ‘Such a
diversity of circumstances, motivations and
readiness to work makes considerable demands
on the scope, quality and pace of the Service
available to individual clients through the
Personal Adviser Service’.
The initial interviews with Advisers were
generally seen as helpful and positive. In
particular, people reported feeling valued, that
new options and ideas were opened to them,
and that they were given access to services and
new sources of help. Some also valued the way
Personal Advisers could intervene on their
behalf with other agencies and employers. More
negative responses related to gaps in the help
offered (in particular, a lack of information
about in-work benefits and other financial
support); to what were perceived as unhelpful
attitudes on part of the Advisers; and to
inappropriate advice or ideas. People also felt
frustrated if nothing seemed to move forward
and indeed this was one of the key criticisms
made – that they did not feel part of an ongoing
process with a specific goal in sight, but more as
31
Keeping track of welfare reform
if they were moving in and out of what was
on offer in a rather incoherent and unplanned
way.
In part, this may have been because they
rarely recalled taking part in activities such as
making progress plans, constructing timetables
for action and getting access to other ES
services. Some people were very frustrated by
this lack of formal planning and of knowledge
about what was going on. To some extent, this
seems to reflect differences between Advisers
and clients in the way they defined the
caseworking role. Advisers were trying to create
individual, tailor-made packages and some felt
they should avoid overloading clients with too
much information. But this could leave clients
feeling powerless and not in control of the
process. Some clients wanted a mentor and
ongoing individual support while others simply
wanted someone who could provide them with
accurate and relevant information, when they
wanted it.
The type of specific help that Personal
Advisers provided was therefore wide ranging.
It included general counselling and support;
work guidance and assessment; provision of
funding and financial aid; advice about the
financial implications of working; assistance
with job search; and ongoing support for people
in work. Some of these were seen as more
successful than others. In particular, some
clients felt they wanted contact with a wider
range of organisations and that the Advisers
were not as well informed about these other
possible sources of support as they could have
been. In addition, there was concern that the
financial advice offered should be
comprehensive and accurate, and clients were
not always convinced this was the case.
32
To sum up, the effectiveness of the
programme, from the viewpoint of the clients,
relied upon a number of factors, summarised as:
… the accessibility of the Service and the
Personal Adviser; the perceived quality of the
human interactions; the match between
expectations and outcomes; the perceived skills
and competencies of the Personal Adviser; the
amount and quality of information exchanged; the
perceived pace of the interaction; the
appropriateness of the choices available;
perceptions of control over what happens;
perception of the allocation of responsibilities
between client, Personal Adviser and other
actors. (Arthur et al., 1999, p. 188)
These are not placed in any sort of order
and, given the diversity among these clients, it
is likely that different factors have different
levels of importance for individuals at different
times.
The New Deal for Lone Parents
Participation in the prototype NDLP was at a
higher level than participation in the NDDP. Of
all lone parents in the prototype areas, about
one-quarter took part in the programme (2 per
cent attending just an initial interview and 21
per cent going on to take part in further
interviews and/or using other parts of the
service). This included some people who had
put themselves forward, rather than waiting for
an invitation letter, including some outside the
target group. Most people took part for positive
reasons – because they were interested in work
or training, because they wanted to find out
more about what help they might get and
because they wanted to know more about the
The impact on individuals: the voluntary programmes
possible financial implications of working.
However, for substantial numbers, more
negative factors were also present. Almost half
thought that they had no choice and that
participation was compulsory, while about a
quarter thought that they might lose benefit if
they did not attend the interview.
Some of the non-participants said that they
could not remember ever receiving an invitation
letter, and others said they did not take part
either because they felt they did not need the
help offered (i.e. they could find jobs by
themselves) or that they did not want to seek
work, at least not at this stage. Few of the nonparticipants were followed up with further
letters or contacts and it seems that for a
significant group – as many as two-fifths of the
non-participants – taking part ‘just did not
happen’. There may have been particular
circumstances at the time (such as illness in the
family, school holidays) or they may have been
waiting for further contact to come from BA/ES.
Thus more lone parents ‘might have taken part
in the programme if some more impetus had
been applied’ (Hales et al., 2000a, p. 70).
Perhaps because the NDLP participants
included a sizeable group of those who felt they
were required to come along, they were not
such a self-selected group as the participants in
the NDDP. This meant that there were not such
large differences in the characteristics and
circumstances of the participants and nonparticipants as there had been in the NDDP. The
NDLP non-participants seem to have been
somewhat less work-ready than the participants
– they were more likely to report health
problems (themselves or in the family), to have
larger families, to have no qualifications and to
lack basic skills, and to have less previous work
experience – but the differences were not
dramatic. The NDLP participants tended to be a
bit older than lone parents in general and had
been lone parents for longer. About half had no
qualifications and, although most had had some
work experience, only one-quarter reported that
they had spent the majority of their working
lives in steady jobs. Many had combined family
care with periods in and out of work. Two-fifths
reported some health problems, either
themselves or their children.
Both participants and non-participants felt
that they faced a number of barriers to work.
These included factors familiar from other
groups – health problems, lack of work
experience and skills, lack of suitable jobs, etc. –
but the employment barriers most likely to be
emphasised by lone parents were those relating
to the financial consequences of working and to
difficulties with child care. Financially, lone
parents were concerned with making the
transition to work, getting access to in-work
benefits, how to make ends meet and what
would happen if they had to return to Income
Support. Many reported that they were very
badly off financially, with debts and difficulties
in making ends meet, so it is probably not
surprising that these financial concerns should
loom so large. As Bryson et al. (1997) and Noble
et al. (1998) have pointed out, there is a
‘hardship trap’ which can make lone parents on
Income Support reluctant to risk a move into
work. Child care also raised a whole range of
concerns, not just in respect of problems of
finding care but also that the care would have to
be affordable, convenient, reliable, of high
quality and appropriate to the needs of their
children. There was also some ambivalence
about the impact of working on children and a
33
Keeping track of welfare reform
feeling that employment would have to wait if it
was not seen to be in the best interests of the
children.
Again, then, there was a range of positions
in relation to the labour market. Of those not
employed, about two-fifths wanted to work
straight away or soon, and this included people
already seeking work as well as those who
wanted to work but had not been actively
looking. These lone parents were motivated to
work to increase their income, to get out of the
house, to support the family and to improve
their quality of life. A similar-sized group said
they did not want to work immediately, but that
they would want to work in the future.
Children’s needs were the main reason given for
postponing work, although a few of these lone
parents were in education or recovering from
sickness. A small group (less than one in ten)
said they thought they would never work, these
being more likely to be older women, to have
been widowed and to be receiving sicknessrelated benefits.
As with other programmes, perceptions of
the programme were very closely bound up
with their perceptions of the effectiveness of the
Personal Adviser. Effective Advisers did not
necessarily (or even usually) find jobs for them,
but they were friendly, enthusiastic, supportive,
positive, treated people as individuals, and
provided relevant and useful advice, especially
about benefits. Ineffective Advisers, by contrast,
were inexperienced, unclear and sometimes
patronising. Views were very polarised – the
Adviser was either seen positively (about fourfifths said this) or negatively (by about one in
ten) with few in the middle. Hales et al. (2000b,
p. 79) conclude that:
34
… there were not many occasions when the
personal adviser helped the lone parent do
something that she or he could not have done of
their own accord. The significant difference made
by the more effective personal advisers was to
impart the sense that someone was on their side,
could understand their situation, would support
them in whatever decision they made about their
options and would help them make sense of the
system.
This was reflected in the type of things
discussed at the interviews, which most
commonly included steps towards looking for
jobs, advice on benefits and ‘better-off’
calculations, child care, and help with CVs and
other aspects of job applications. As with the
NDDP, there was only limited referral to other
services. And few lone parents went into
education or training. Indeed, many of the
participants had just one interview and this was
particularly true for those who joined the
programme later on, suggesting that there was
some reduction in the intensity of caseworking
activity over time.
The prototype NDLP was thus in practice
very much an advice and information service,
and hence the strong importance placed on the
role of Personal Advisers – for most lone
parents, the Personal Advisers were the New
Deal. Thus, when asked to give an overall rating
of satisfaction, there was a strong correlation
between perceptions of the Personal Advisers
and overall assessment of the effectiveness of
the programme. The mean satisfaction score
was 6.6 (out of 10) but those who were positive
about their Advisers had a mean score of 7.4
while those who were negative had a mean
score of 2.4.
The impact on individuals: the voluntary programmes
The first evaluation of the national
programme, based on just over 300 interviews
in nine areas, tended to confirm the findings
from the prototype (Martin Hamblin, 2000).
Those who participated were generally positive
in their view of the programme, and especially
in respect of their contacts with Personal
Advisers. About two-thirds of the participants
were already looking for work and about half
had a specific job in mind. At the time of the
interview, about three to five months after their
NDLP contact, about 12 per cent claimed to
have found jobs as a result of their participation.
The non-participants also generally thought the
programme was a good idea but they were less
satisfied with the information and support they
received. People were very put off if they
received an unfavourable work/benefit
calculation. Non-participants also tended to
think that the Personal Advisers were poorly
informed and did not try hard enough to bring
them into the programme. Thus, as in the
prototype, the national programme seems to be
best able to help those already closest to the
labour market and the role of the Personal
Advisers remains crucial in how people
respond.
The New Deal for Partners
The published evaluation of the NDPU is based
on interviews with partners (both participants
and non-participants), with jobseekers and with
NDPU Advisers (Stone et al., 2000). Most of
these partners were married women with
children and some had had very little recent
employment experience. In general, there was
rather a low take-up for this programme, but
again this was not necessarily because people
were actively opting out. Many said they could
not remember receiving a letter; others who did
remember the letter did not think the
programme was really relevant for them. Few
had heard of the programme before receiving
the invitation letter, so they were not already
aware of it. Take-up was better in areas that also
made use of follow-up contact by telephone.
In general, people thought the programme
was a good idea – it was seen as providing
women with greater, and more equal,
opportunities and as representing a more
‘modern’ approach to families and work. On the
other hand, both participants and nonparticipants felt that the programme might not
be able to tackle many of the barriers to work.
These included many of the same barriers
identified by other groups – their age,
experience, the lack of suitable jobs, their health,
lack of confidence and so on. There was some
concern about using the Jobcentre and other ES
services, and also some women took the view
that, if the ES had not helped their husbands
into work, it would not be likely to help them
either.
As for lone parents, child care was a big
issue for this group. This was a ‘recurring
theme’ and a key barrier, not just to
employment but also to participation in the
programme. Some of the women wanted to stay
at home and care for their children themselves
and were not interested in the programme for
that reason. But others did want access to child
care that was affordable, of good quality and
located where they could easily reach it. They
were not generally aware of the existence of
help with child-care costs, nor did they feel they
could rely upon other family members to help
with child care.
35
Keeping track of welfare reform
Another striking finding from this study was
the importance of issues around gender roles
and concerns about role reversal. Although the
women often felt that it was a good thing for
their needs to be considered, they were not keen
on an outcome which would result in work for
them while their partners remained
unemployed. It was felt that this might cause
friction in families, and that men would not
wish to take on child caring and domestic tasks.
The invitation to their partners to participate in
the programme caused many jobseekers to think
again about their own employment prospects
and needs. Some felt resentful at the help being
offered to their partners and concerned about
possible competition for jobs. But others
welcomed an approach which could consider
the needs of the family as a whole.
Initial interviews covered a range of topics –
past work experiences, aspirations, information
about vacancies, help with CVs and other
aspects of job applications, and calculations of
the financial consequences of working. Most
found the initial interview helpful although, as
with other programmes, much depended on
their reactions to the Personal Advisers. Being
treated as an individual, being helped and
encouraged, being given good advice and new
information – all these were very positively
valued. Being pointed in particular directions,
being expected to work when they felt
unconfident, being patronised and treated with
a lack of interest or enthusiasm – these were
negatively valued.
Following the first interview, the NDPU
Advisers tended to take on to their caseload
those who were job-ready, or with a real interest
in finding work, or with work potential. From
the other side, some people dropped out
36
because they were not happy with their first
interview and others for a variety of family and
other reasons. For those who stayed on, there
was some disappointment with the follow-up
and they felt that the Advisers tended to lose
interest in them over time. There was little sense
of progression or clear forward planning.
The voluntary programmes: emerging
issues
Disabled people, lone parents and partners of
unemployed people are relatively new target
groups for labour market programmes and this
is reflected in the way they responded to the
programmes. At the very first stage –
participation or not – there were clearly mixed
responses. Many had not heard of the
programmes before and so were unsure what
was being offered, whether it was required of
them or not and what impact it might have on
their benefits. Some pre-knowledge, perhaps
gained through local publicity, did seem to be
helpful in bringing people in. Some of those
who did not participate were not actively opting
out – they did not remember receiving a letter,
or the letter came at a time that was difficult for
them, or they somehow just did not take up the
interview offer. If the letters specified a time for
an appointment, people were more likely to take
part than if they had to make further contact to
arrange a time. Take-up also improved if letters
were followed up by phone calls. Thus, more
proactive attempts to encourage participation
could probably have increased take-up rates.
Some of those who participated did so
because they thought they were required to do
so and would lose benefit if they did not. Lone
parents were particularly likely to fall into this
The impact on individuals: the voluntary programmes
category. But most participants took part
because they wanted work or training and they
felt the programme would help them. There
were also ‘volunteer’ participants – people who
put themselves forward even though they did
not fall into the target group (e.g. lone parents
with pre-school age children) or who were
referred from other agencies (a common route in
for disabled people). Participants were thus to
some degree a self-selected group of people,
although this was probably more true in respect
of the NDDP and NDPU than the NDLP.
Nevertheless, even with an element of selfselection, the participants were people with a
wide range of experiences, motivations,
expectations and goals. Their previous
employment experience tended to be patchy.
Among the lone parents and the partners, this
was often because they had had breaks in
employment while caring for their children.
Among the disabled people, this was because of
various factors – those with long-standing
disabilities had already had difficulties in
finding suitable work and those with more
recent health problems may have had
difficulties in finding, and getting access to,
work of a different type from their previous
employment.
Motivations to work varied. There were very
few people who thought they would never
work, but not everyone wanted a job straight
away, or to work full-time, or to take jobs that
might make caring for their families more
difficult. The partners were also concerned
about the possible implications of ‘role reversal’
and did not necessarily want to work instead of
their husbands. Related to the different
motivations to work, people also had different
ideas about what they might want to do. Some
were very vague and unaware of the type of
opportunities available while others had quite
specific ideas about what they wanted to do and
were not willing to consider other options.
Thus, these potential workers were in some
ways more flexible than the NDYP and NDLTU
clients – they were not only interested in fulltime jobs but were willing, or even preferred, to
take part-time jobs and in a range of
occupations. However, they were certainly
much more constrained by both their personal
characteristics and their caring responsibilities.
Thus, while the main employment barriers
were not dissimilar to those faced by the NDYP
and NDLTU groups – lack of skills and work
experience, the level and type of job available
locally, employer attitudes, poor job-search
skills and lack of confidence – there were also
more specific problems. For disabled people,
practical issues to do with their individual
circumstances were central and in particular
there was a view that employers were not
willing to consider people with disabilities, and
were not flexible in recognising the limitations
and demands of their conditions. For lone
parents, the two big issues were the financial
implications of working and child care. They
were concerned that taking a job would leave
them worse off (and many already had debts
and money problems) and that they would not
be able to find, or afford, good quality child care
to fit in with working hours. Child care was also
a key issue for partners.
Again, it was relationships with Personal
Advisers which coloured people’s perceptions
and valuations of their participation in the
programmes. In general, these were very
positive, certainly in respect of the interpersonal
interactions between Advisers and participants.
37
Keeping track of welfare reform
People, especially the lone parents, were
appreciative of the way in which Personal
Advisers sought to respond to them as
individuals, to identify and meet their needs.
They welcomed the information – especially
about benefits and other financial implications
of working – and wanted more of this. But they
strongly disliked being patronised, pushed in
particular directions, or treated with a lack of
interest or enthusiasm. The NDDP participants
seem to have been the most instrumental in
their evaluations. They certainly wanted the
Personal Advisers to listen to them and treat
them with respect, but they also wanted results
and positive outcomes. The lone parents and
partners were often positive in their appraisal of
the programme, even if it had not been able to
help them find suitable jobs. However, some
participants reported a feeling of drift or lack of
clear direction – once they had had an interview
and discussed their situations, it was not clear
what should happen next. Many were quite
happy with the one-off contact which they had
had, but others felt that the Personal Advisers
lost interest in them as time went on. There was
little by way of referring people on to training
courses or other services and so there was some
frustration among participants at their lack of
direction or progress. Providing a clear menu of
options, as in the NDYP and NDLTU, would
help with this.
As noted in Chapter 2, there was a clear
deadweight effect in the NDLP, and it was
estimated that the majority of the lone parents
who left Income Support would have done so
anyway, in the absence of the programme. The
same may be true of the NDDP and NDPU.
However, these studies of the impact on
individuals suggest we should be cautious in
38
interpreting this. The lone mothers who found
work may have done so anyway but the ‘push’
that the NDLP gave them may nevertheless
have been crucial in giving them the knowledge
and confidence they needed to make the move.
Getting information about in-work benefits was
important and could itself boost confidence
since uncertainty about outcomes makes
informed choice possible. Having someone
directly offering encouragement and support,
including after starting work, was also valued
and lone parents were the group most likely to
maintain contact with their Personal Advisers
after they moved into work, suggesting that an
ongoing mentoring role is helpful to them.
One of the key policy issues under debate
concerns the voluntary nature of these
programmes. In future, it is planned to make
attendance at an initial interview a requirement
for all claimants. How far does the evaluation
evidence support this strategy? The results are
somewhat ambivalent. Certainly, take-up was
generally rather low but a significant number of
non-participants might have taken part if they
had been pursued more vigorously, and this
could be a better option than compulsion. The
benefits of participation were clear – most
people felt that they were better informed and
hence more confident, as a result of taking part
– but it is not clear whether these benefits would
be sustained with a much larger, and even more
diverse, client group. Compulsion can also lead
to resentment and it may be that these groups –
disabled people and people with caring
responsibilities – will feel this in particular.
Some lone parents, for example, strongly feel
that they are already engaged in an important
activity – bringing up their children – and that
this should also be valued more generally by
The impact on individuals: the voluntary programmes
society. Disabled people may well feel that
compulsion is equivalent to blaming them for
their situation, rather than recognising the very
serious difficulties that they face in getting
access to the labour market. Positive contact
with Personal Advisers may have gone some
way towards persuading lone parents and
disabled people that these programmes are
meant to help, not to harm, them and so have
helped to restore some trust in government
policies towards them. Compulsion could put
that at risk.
39
5 Delivering the New Deal: changing
cultures and ways of working
This chapter examines the way in which the
New Deal programmes have been delivered,
focusing on three issues which are relevant to all
of the programmes: the role of partnerships, the
involvement of employers and the way the
Personal Advisers perceive their role.
New Deal partnerships
The New Deal programmes are national
programmes, but they are also intended to be
responsive to local conditions and labour
market variations. As we have seen, many of the
programmes have included pilot or prototype
programmes, in which one of the aims has been
to test out differences in organisation and
delivery. The NDLTU pilot programmes, for
example, were given discretion to test out a
range of different delivery approaches
(Atkinson et al., 2000). Two had random
assignments, which meant that some people
entered the programme much earlier than
others but this seemed to make little difference
to either processes or outcomes. The main
variation across the pilots was in the way in
which employment subsidies were used. Some
paid these to employers as single amounts at the
start of a placement while others made ongoing
payments; and some targeted payments on
particular client groups or to encourage
particular types of employer. Overall, however,
these variations seemed to make little
difference, perhaps because the amounts of
money involved were not large.
It is the NDYP that has been at the forefront
of the attempt to marry national objectives with
local autonomy. The national NDYP is
40
organised into 144 ‘units of delivery’, each of
which covers a particular area (of varying sizes)
and is managed by a local partnership (of
varying types). The ES local office takes
responsibility for setting up these partnerships,
which are intended to operate at two levels. At
the strategic level, partnerships are responsible
for assessing local labour market needs and at
the delivery level, they are responsible for the
design of the programme locally. However, as
Martin et al. (2000, p. 8) note:
… the degree of local flexibility in the programme
should not be exaggerated. In some ways, the
key parameters – the ‘nationally set standards’ –
of the New Deal are uniform and quite strongly
defined, particularly on budgets and costs.
The first Tavistock Institute evaluation of
NDYP delivery took place at a fairly early stage
of the Pathfinder programmes (Tavistock
Institute, 1998). This highlighted the success in
putting complex partnership arrangements in
place in a fairly short period of time and noted
that there was much innovation in setting up
delivery models. The ES was required to take
the lead in setting these up and this could
sometimes cause problems if other stakeholders
felt they had not been adequately consulted, or
if existing partnership arrangements had been
ignored. Four main types of NDYP delivery
model were identified. These are the independent
contracts model, in which the ES contracts
individually with the various service providers;
joint venture partnerships, in which the ES is one
member of equal partners who collectively
contract with the ES regional office to deliver
the programme; consortia, in which the ES
Delivering the New Deal: changing cultures and ways of working
contracts with a lead organisation contracting
with individual providers; and private sector, in
which the ES contracts directly with private
employers who then lead delivery. Partnership
members varied but could include employers,
voluntary organisations, Training and
Enterprise Councils (TECs), other training
providers, careers services, trade unions and
local authorities. The research pointed to the
need to involve employers at the strategic level,
as this had an impact on the extent to which
they were willing to be engaged in delivery.
Similarly, the take-up of the full-time education
and training option was also related to the
extent of strategic involvement of local TECs
and other training providers.
The later study (Tavistock Institute, 1999a,
1999b), based on case studies carried out
between November 1998 and April 1999, noted
that actual partnership working was strongest
in the joint venture partnerships and consortia
and weakest in the ES and private-sector-led
areas. They found that membership of the
partnerships had changed little during the first
year or so, but many had been able to increase
participation of ethnic minority, disability and
trade union representatives. However, smaller
and more specialist agencies often found it
difficult to take part. The focus of the work of
partnerships tended to have shifted from
strategy to delivery, although one of the areas of
success was in partnerships bringing in
additional sources of funding (e.g. EU funds).
Providing New Deal places: employers and
others
One of the main messages – from employers,
colleges and TECs, voluntary and
environmental organisations – was that there
was not enough basic skills training in the
gateway. It was generally felt that time spent in
the gateway should be used to develop these
basic skills and that Personal Advisers should
be playing a more active part in the selection of
appropriate people. If necessary, this would
mean that some people would need to spend
longer periods in the gateway, rather than being
required to move on after a specified period,
regardless of progress.
The service sector provided the largest
number of employers for the New Deal.
Employers said they were motivated to take
part for a variety of reasons, including a sense of
social responsibility (Snape, 1998; Arthur et al.,
1999; Elam and Snape, 2000). In general, the
employment subsidies were not seen as a key
factor in determining participation although
such payments were considered to be important
as insurance, or to help meet costs of
employment.
When asked about general recruitment
practices, employers said that they were not
against employing young people, or disabled
people, or long-term unemployed people per se,
but they did also express some concerns about
each of these groups. Disabled people were seen
as presenting three main challenges: ‘the
requirements of the job and the ability of
disabled people to meet them; the working
environment; and the reactions of others to
disabled employees’ (Arthur et al., 1999, p. 197).
There were concerns that young people and
long-term unemployed people might lack
motivation and skills. Many employers were
‘strongly averse’ to those with certain attributes
– criminal records, substance abuse problems,
mental health problems (Atkinson et al., 2000).
41
Keeping track of welfare reform
Long-term unemployment was sometimes seen
as a marker to indicate lack of work readiness
(Hasluck, 2000a).
Employers said that their main concern was
to find the right person for the job and most said
they preferred people to be ‘work-ready’ rather
than ‘job-ready’. They were looking less for
particular skills and more for the right
motivation. One of the main criticisms raised by
participating employers was that, in their view,
many of the people sent to them were not
sufficiently work-ready, they lacked basic skills
and were insufficiently motivated. For NDYP
employers, the training requirements also
presented problems. Larger employers were
sometimes reluctant to take part because they
did not want to change their existing training
provision to the NVQ training required under
the programme. In fact, the requirement to
provide training of a particular amount and
type was one of the biggest problem areas and a
key reason why some employers did not want
to get involved and/or dropped out of the
NDYP.
Personal Advisers were also seen as ‘pivotal’
in the employers’ experiences and perceptions.
Proactive Personal Advisers motivated
employers, addressed their problems, helped
complete any paperwork and supported the
young people in work. They played a central
role but, as noted above, many employers felt
that Personal Advisers should do even more to
screen applicants and make sure that they were
sent suitable people. Black and ethnic minority
employers reported more problems than other
employers and many felt that the New Deal was
not very well targeted to them. Some employers
were confused by the existence of various
different New Deal programmes, with different
42
client groups and different rules (Atkinson et al.,
2000). Elam and Snape (2000) suggest that there
is a need for ‘an employer-centred equivalent to
the Personal Adviser to ensure employers’
needs are consistently met’ and highlighted the
priorities for change as including ‘greater
consistency in ensuring employability of New
Deal clients before they are sent to employers’
and a ‘more flexible interpretation of the
training requirements’ (Elam and Snape, 2000,
Executive Summary).
The main problem faced by training
providers (colleges, TECs, etc.) was matching
supply to demand. As Hasluck (2000a, p. 39)
notes, this option ‘is the most complex to deliver
since it requires NDYP delivery to mesh with an
existing system of education and training’. In
the early stages in particular, there was some
over-contracting of college places and it was
difficult to balance level of provision with
providing a good range of courses and so
promoting wider choice. Funding was often a
problem for training providers, and this could
lead to courses being cancelled at short notice,
which caused problems for participants.
Colleges usually work with an autumn start to
courses and there can be problems in providing
courses that start at different times throughout
the year. However, quality control was often
better in the training options than elsewhere,
mainly because there were existing systems of
quality control already operating in the training
sector that could be transferred to NDYP. Again,
the training providers wanted the Personal
Advisers to play a stronger role in assessing and
improving basic skills and motivation. This was
seen as very important in order to prevent dropout from training.
It was mainly men rather than women who
Delivering the New Deal: changing cultures and ways of working
took part in the environmental option, which
was usually manual work. There were,
however, two very different groups of
participants. On the one hand, there is a high
proportion of mandatory referrals to this option
– it ‘tends to be seen by Personal Advisers as an
option for clients for whom no other option is
suitable because of limited ability of the clients
or their barriers to work’ (Tavistock Institute,
1999a, p. IV). On the other hand, there is a small
group of very committed people who choose
this option. The two groups do not mix well.
Some job displacement does seem to occur here
(e.g. in home insulation work, in local authority
services such as recycling). Because they are
dealing with many of the most difficult young
people, outcomes in this option tend to be seen
by providers in terms of the ‘distance travelled’
towards employability rather than getting
participants to be work ready. This raises issues
about the nature of support still likely to be
needed after this option finishes.
There are some similar issues in the
voluntary sector option, where there is also
some polarisation of participants between the
highly committed and those required to take
this option under threat of sanctions. Voluntary
group providers face particular problems. There
are many small organisations in this sector that
find it difficult to cope with the administrative
and financial demands of the New Deal
bureaucracy. In addition, the goals of these
organisations are focused on their community
development aims and this can give rise to some
tension with the goals of the New Deal, making
some organisations query whether this sort of
delivery role is the ‘right’ sort of activity for
them to take part in.
The views of Personal Advisers
The pivotal role of the Personal Advisers has
come across from all perspectives – participants
value their support, employers feel that they are
an essential part of the process and want them
to play an even more proactive and selection
role. As Hasluck (2000a, p. 59) notes, the
Personal Adviser role:
… differs greatly from the ES roles that preceded
it. It requires important inter-personal skill and
expertise and specific skills relating to advice,
guidance and mentoring … Methods of working
are also different. NDPAs must juggle conflicting
priorities and often have to work in a pro-active
fashion to achieve successful results.
From the perspective of the Personal
Advisers themselves, the studies generally
found high levels of job satisfaction. Advisers
enjoyed the changed nature of their interaction
with clients and of being able to offer help and
support on an individualised and ongoing basis.
The need for more training, especially for
dealing with groups with complex needs, was
often a theme. There was some evidence that
Advisers were less well equipped for dealing
with people with multiple problems and needs,
and may have found it difficult to know how to
raise certain issues with participants.
As programmes move to national level, there
is again some evidence that Personal Advisers
work less intensively with individuals (as
caseloads get larger) and also that the pressure
to get people into jobs (a more work-first role)
increased as time went on. In the NDYP, there
was a policy shift (at the end of 1998) towards a
stronger focus on getting people into work and
this seems to have a negative impact on
43
Keeping track of welfare reform
relationships with Personal Advisers (Hasluck,
2000a). Also, interactions with individuals
tended to fall off the longer they stayed in the
programme, especially in the voluntary
programmes where Advisers seemed a bit prone
to lose interest if they were unable to help
people to do something immediately.
New Deal, new approach?
Each of the New Deal programmes is somewhat
different in respect of aims and objectives,
eligibility rules, conditionality, type of support
offered and in relationship to other policy
measures. The New Deal package for young
people and long-term, older, unemployed
people aims to improve employability – the
capacity to get access to work, stay in
employment and move on to better jobs –
through offering individualised support and a
set menu of options, all including work
experience and training. It includes an element
of local autonomy, with local partnerships
between the ES and employers, training
providers and voluntary groups involved in the
design and delivery. Substantial numbers of
people have already moved through the
programme. This includes some who probably
would have found work anyway but, taking this
into account, there does seem to have been a
positive effect on unemployment exits. Most
participants have responded positively to the
programme as a whole, although critical of
certain aspects (e.g. the level and type of
training offered, the lack of choice of options).
The New Deal package for lone parents,
disabled people and the partners of
unemployed people aims to reduce barriers to
work for these groups by providing them with
44
information and advice to enable them to take
up job opportunities. Participation is voluntary
and take-up of these programmes has been
slow. However, more efforts to attract people in
could be effective, as non-participants are not
necessarily actively rejecting these programmes.
Those who take part generally respond
positively, especially to the contacts with
Personal Advisers. They are able to call upon
their Personal Advisers to help with any aspect
of getting into, and staying in, work. Training
opportunities may be made available but there
is no training requirement as in the compulsory
programmes. Thus, it could be argued that these
voluntary programmes are in practice more
‘work-first’ than the compulsory programmes,
which have a stronger ‘human capital’ element.
Previous research (Bryson et al., 1997) has
shown that lone parents who get access to
training, including on-the-job training, do
improve their earnings, so there is a case for
extending this aspect of the voluntary
programmes. The lack of referral options also
meant that there was sometimes a feeling of
drift in the voluntary programmes.
One of the most innovative features of the
New Deal programmes is the focus on treating
people as individuals and addressing the whole
range of their needs and the barriers they face to
work. The Personal Adviser plays a key role in
this and, indeed, this relationship is the means
of delivering this more holistic approach. The
role of the Personal Advisers is pivotal for how
both participants and providers assess the
programmes. Participants value Advisers who
treat them as individuals and with respect, and
who offer real practical help, in the form of
information, support and access to new ideas or
services. Employers and training providers
Delivering the New Deal: changing cultures and ways of working
value Advisers who can send them people who
are well motivated, ready to work (not
necessarily trained for a particular job), keen
and with basic skills already in place. Both
participants and employers generally like the
service that they get from Advisers but they
would also like more.
Employers in particular would like Advisers
to act more strongly as filters in selecting people
to come to them. This raises potential conflicts
with their responsibilities towards their
individual clients. It also suggests that
unrealistic expectations of what ES services can
provide may be raised and there is some
evidence that those hardest to help are already
getting left behind. As caseloads increase, and
as the range of clients becomes more diverse,
creating tailor-made packages is likely to
become more difficult. Within the ONE
programme, Personal Advisers deal with all
client groups. This makes sense in that there are
clear similarities in both perceived barriers and
actual barriers across these groups. But there
were also some more specific barriers/needs for
different groups and a wide range of work
readiness within each group.
The role of Personal Advisers also needs to
be considered in the context of the debate over
compulsion. The potential tension between the
welfare and the control roles of the Personal
Advisers is much stronger when sanctions are
involved. Compulsion, even just to attend an
initial interview, would bring in a much wider
range of people with a much wider range of
work readiness and this could dilute the
effectiveness of the programmes. There was
some evidence from the NDLP evaluation that
one of the reasons why the employment
outcomes were not higher was that the
programme was dealing with such a wide range
of people. A more targeted approach might have
been more effective. Voluntary programmes
allow a degree of self-selection, which makes
them somewhat easier to administer.
It is not possible to draw conclusions about
the effect of compulsion from these evaluations
– we cannot compare the compulsory with the
voluntary as there are too many differences
between the groups involved and the sorts of
options that were available. But we can learn
something about how people responded to the
idea and practice of compulsion from the
qualitative studies. There was a range of views
about the value or otherwise of compulsion
among the various client groups in the
programmes, with some people arguing that it
is always counterproductive and others that
compulsion can help people who would not
otherwise get into these sorts of programmes.
The issue of compulsion needs some careful
unpacking in respect of when, what and to
whom it should be applied, in order to be
effective. Compulsion to attend an initial
interview was generally looked upon more
favourably than compulsion to take up
particular options, whether these were training,
work experience or jobs. Allowing people more
choice in these may be the most effective way to
ensure the best fit. Compulsion for certain
groups (young people, long-term unemployed)
was looked upon more favourably than
compulsion for others (older workers, lone
parents, disabled people and partners). The
difference seems to relate at least in part to the
other roles and responsibilities of these groups,
particularly caring roles. In addition, it seems
that compulsion is seen as particularly
inappropriate for those groups suffering from
45
Keeping track of welfare reform
discrimination by employers (e.g. disabled
people) and for those who have long records of
steady employment (e.g. older workers). The
positive experience created in particular by the
Personal Advisers may be undermined by too
much compulsion applied to the wrong people
at the wrong time.
Hasluck (2000a, p. 61) points out that the
NDYP is a ‘dynamic process’ and this
conclusion also applies more widely, to the New
Deal programmes as a whole. The New Deal
process is not (or perhaps more accurately,
should not be) either rigid or linear. The routes
people take through the process must be flexible
in order to meet individual needs and they may
need to step back into previous stages, or
continue to be helped after they have ‘left’ the
programme and moved into work. There can,
however, be tensions between flexibility and
forward planning. The latter sometimes seemed
to be missing from the voluntary programmes
and people complained of lack of direction. On
the other hand, the requirement to move into
options was sometimes experienced as too rigid
in the compulsory programmes, and the gap
between the individualised assessment and the
fixed options that followed was felt to be too
large. The balance between flexibility and
planning also depends upon individual
circumstances and needs, and how these change
over time.
Labour market programmes are always
more effective for those already closest to
employment but, perhaps especially for groups
such as lone parents and disabled people, access
to support and accurate information may be an
important element in helping people into work.
Even those who are otherwise work-ready seem
to benefit from this. Taking part in the New Deal
46
seemed to provide a final push or boost for
some people in these groups. The New Deal
programmes will, however, have to work harder
in order to reach those with multiple
disadvantages and special needs. Such people
are a minority but they are found in all the New
Deal client groups.
The evaluations can tell only a partial story
of the outcomes of these programmes. First, the
time-period – one, two, three years – is very
short and if we want to consider outcomes such
as increased employability and sustainable
employment then longer periods are required.
Second, the New Deal programmes are only
part of the story and until the full package – of
increased financial support for families,
improved child care services and help with costs
of care – is in place the complete picture is not
available. Third, the evaluations have so far
focused on the prototypes or early stages of
national programmes and the results may look
different when all the programmes are up and
running on a national basis. Finally, there is still
insufficient information adequately to examine
the outcomes at a local level, in the context of
different labour market conditions. Given the
very wide variations in labour demand, this
local context may be one of the most important
factors in determining outcomes.
This summary of the New Deal evaluations
has highlighted some key points but there is a
wealth of other information, both already
published and coming forward into the public
domain. As noted above, this has been an
extensive evaluation programme and the
combination of quantitative and qualitative data
has been powerful in casting light on both
outcomes and processes. It provides a strong
baseline of information for the development and
Delivering the New Deal: changing cultures and ways of working
evaluation of future policy options. The research
shows that the New Deal is having an impact,
and for a range of different groups of workless
people, and suggests the Personal Adviser
approach has had a positive impact on the
responses of both participants and providers.
Drawing employers directly into the design and
delivery of programmes has been an important
aspect of the NDYP in particular. These
evaluations have mainly been in relation to the
prototypes and the initial stages of the national
programme, and the next stage of research will
be able to tell us more about whether and how
this picture holds when the national
programmes for all these groups are fully up
and running, and the competition between
different needs becomes more intense.
47
Notes
Chapter 1
1
2
3
4
48
There is also the New Deal for Musicians,
which was introduced nationally from
October 1999. There is little information
available about this programme and so we
have not discussed it in this report.
The terminology of pilot, pathfinder and
prototype is used variously across the
different programmes, and we follow that
usage. Rather confusingly, in the case of the
NDLTU, the national programme started
before the pilots, with the latter being used
to test out early entry and other innovations
in delivery.
The merger of the Benefits Agency and the
Employment Service announced in March
2000 will bring these services into one
administrative unit.
There are also various independent research
projects and commentaries. These include,
for example, two major ongoing crossnational studies funded by the EU. One is
based at the University of Loughborough
and is comparing ‘workfare’ policies across
six European countries (Trickey and
Løedemel, forthcoming, 2000). The second
is based at South Bank University and
compares recent developments in social
assistance, workfare policies and their
labour market interface in four European
countries (Levy et al., 1999). There are also a
number of relevant House of Commons
Select Committee reports (e.g. on the
Employment Service, on lone parents and
on the ONE proposals). Much use is made
of the published New Deal statistics, e.g. by
the TUC which is publishing a monthly
series drawn from these.
References
Anderton, B., Riley, R. and Young, G. (1999a)
The New Deal for Young People: First Year Analysis
of the Implication for the Macroeconomy. Sheffield:
Employment Service (ESR33)
Campbell, M., Sanderson, I. and Walton, F.
(1998) Local Responses to Long-term
Unemployment. York: Joseph Rowntree
Foundation
Anderton, B., Riley, R. and Young, G. (1999b)
The New Deal for Young People: Early Findings
from the Pathfinder Areas. Sheffield: Employment
Service (ESR34)
Coleman, N. and Williams, J. (2000) New Deal for
Young People: National Survey of Participants:
Stage 1 Technical Report. Sheffield: Employment
Service (ESR45)
Arthur, S., Corden, A., Green, A., Lewis, J.,
Loumidis, J., Sainsbury, R., Stafford, B.,
Thornton, P. and Walker, R. (1999) New Deal for
Disabled People: Early Implementation. London:
DSS (Research Report 106)
Department of Social Security (1999)
Opportunity for All: Tackling Poverty and Social
Exclusion. Cm 4445. London: The Stationery
Office.
Atkinson, J. (1999) The New Deal for Unemployed
People: a Summary of Progress. Sheffield:
Employment Service (ESR13)
Atkinson, J., Kersley, B. and Kodz, J. (1999)
Employers as Customers. Sheffield: Employment
Service (ESR28)
Atkinson, J., Barry, J., Bladen, J., Dewson, S. and
Walsh, K. (2000) New Deal for Long-term
Unemployed People: Case Studies to Evaluate the
Pilots. Sheffield: Employment Service (ESR43)
Auspos, P. and Riccio, J. (1999) A Review of US
and European Literature on the Microeconomic
Effects of Labour Market Programmes on Young
People. Sheffield: Employment Service (ESR20)
Bryson, A., Ford, R. and White, M. (1997)
Making Work Pay: Lone Mothers, Employment and
Well-being. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation
Bryson, A., Knight G. and White M. (2000) New
Deal for Young People: National Survey of
Participants: Stage 1. Sheffield: Employment
Service (ESR44).
Elam, G. and Snape, D. (2000) New Deal for
Young People: Striking a Deal with Employers.
Sheffield: Employment Service (ESR36)
Finch, H., O’Connor, W. with Millar, J., Hales, J.,
Shaw, A. and Roth, W. (1999) New Deal for Lone
Parents: Learning from the Prototype Areas.
London: DSS (Research Report 92)
Finn, D., Blackmore, M. and Nimmo, M. (1998)
Welfare to Work and the Long-term Unemployed.
London: Unemployment Unit and Youthaid
Ford, J., Kempson, E. and England, J. (1995) Into
Work? The Impact of Housing Costs and the Benefit
System on People’s Decision to Work. York: Joseph
Rowntree Foundation
Gardiner, K. (1997) Bridges from Benefits to Work.
York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation
Glasgow Development Agency (2000) Learning
from Experience: The Lessons of Employment Zones.
Glasgow: Glasgow Development Agency
Green, A. (2000) Evaluation of the New Deal for
Lone Parents: A Comparative Analysis of the Local
Study Areas. London: DSS Social Research
Branch (In-house Report No. 63)
49
Keeping track of welfare reform
Green, A. and Owen, D. (1998) ‘Geographical
variations in unemployment and nonemployment’, JRF Findings, April
Hales, J. and Collins, D. (1999) New Deal for
Young People: Leavers with Unknown Destinations.
Sheffield: Employment Service (ESR21)
Hales, J., Lessof, C., Roth, W., Gloyer, M., Shaw,
A., Millar, J., Barnes, M., Elias, P., Hasluck, C.,
McKnight, A. and Green, A. (2000a) Evaluation of
the New Deal for Lone Parents: Early Lessons from
the Phase One Prototype – Synthesis Report.
London: DSS (Research Report 108)
Hales, J., Roth, W., Barnes, M., Millar, J., Lessof,
C., Gloyer, M. and Shaw, A. (2000b) Evaluation of
the New Deal for Lone Parents: Early Lessons from
the Phase One Prototype – Findings of Surveys.
London: DSS (Research Report 109)
Hall, J. and Reid, K. (1998) ‘New Deal for the
young unemployed: monitoring and
evaluation’, Labour Market Trends, November,
pp. 549–53
Hasluck, C. (1999a) Employers and the
Employment Option of the New Deal for Young
People; Employment Additionality and its
Measurement. Sheffield: Employment Service
(ESR14)
Hasluck, C. (1999b) Employers, Young People and
the Unemployed: a Review of Research. Sheffield:
Employment Service (ESR12)
Hasluck, C. (2000a) The New Deal for Young
People: Two Years on. Sheffield: Employment
Service (ESR41)
Hasluck, C. (2000b) The New Deal for the LongTerm Unemployed – A Summary of Progress.
Sheffield: Employment Service (ESR46)
50
Hasluck, C., McKnight, A. and Elias, P. (2000)
Evaluation of the New Deal for Lone Parents: Early
Lessons from the Phase One Prototype – Cost–benefit
and Econometric Analyses. London: DSS
(Research Report 110)
Hillage, J. and Pollard, E. (1998) Employability:
Developing a Framework for Policy Analysis.
London: DfEE
Hirsch, D. (1999) Welfare beyond Work: Active
Participation in a New Welfare State. York: Joseph
Rowntree Foundation
HM Treasury (2000) Tackling Poverty and Making
Work Pay: Tax Credits for the 21st Century, the
Modernisation of Britain’s Tax and Benefit System,
Paper No. 6. London: HM Treasury
Holtermann, S., Brannen, J., Moss, P. and Owen,
C. (1999) Lone Parents and the Labour Market: a
Review of Research. Sheffield: Employment
Service (ESR23)
House of Commons Select Committee on Social
Security (1999) The One Service Pilots; 1988/99
Session Sixth Report. London: House of
Commons
Inland Revenue (1999a) Evaluation Programme for
the Working Families Tax Credit. London: Inland
Revenue
Inland Revenue (1999b) Evaluation Programme
for the Disabled Person’s Tax Credit. London:
Inland Revenue
Legard, R. and Ritchie, J. (1999) New Deal for
Young People: National Gateway. Sheffield:
Employment Service (ESR16)
References
Legard, R., Molloy, D., Ritchie, J. and Saunders,
T. (2000) New Deal for Long-term Unemployed
People: Qualitative Work with Individuals Stage
One. Sheffield: Employment Service (ESR38)
Legard, R., Ritchie, J., Keegan, J. and Turner, R.
(1998) New Deal for Young People: The Gateway.
Sheffield: Employment Service (ESR8)
Levy, C., Gray, A., Gueck, M., Bouquin, S. and
Krzeslo, E. (1999) Minima Sociaux et condition
salariale; rapport intermediaire, ‘Etat des lieux’,
unpublished report to DGV, EU, Brussels
O’Connor, W., Bruce, S. and Ritchie J. (2000)
New Deal for Young People: National FollowThrough. Sheffied: Employment Service (ESR47)
Organisation for International Co-operation and
Development (OECD) (1997) Labour Market
Policies: New Challenges: Enhancing The
Effectiveness of Active Labour Market Polices. Paris:
OECD
Office of National Statistics (ONS) (1999) Labour
Force Survey 1999. London: ONS
Lloyd, T. (1999) ‘Young men’s attitudes to
gender and work’, JRF Findings, May
Rogers, D. (1999) ‘New Deal evaluation: a
progress report’, Labour Market Bulletin. Belfast:
Training and Employment Agency
Martin Hamblin (2000) A Report on the Lone
Parent Client Satisfaction Survey: Part of the
Evaluation of NDLP Phase 3. Sheffield:
Employment Service (ESR39)
Sanderson, I. with Walton, F. and Campbell, M.
(1999) Back to Work: Local Action on
Unemployment. York: Joseph Rowntree
Foundation
Martin, R., Nativel, C. and Sunley, P. (2000) ‘The
local impact of the New Deal: does geography
make a difference?’, paper presented at the
Annual Conference of the Institute of British
Geographers, University of Sussex, January
Snape, D. (1998) New Deal for Young People: a
Good Deal for Employers? Sheffield: Employment
Service (ESR6)
Meadows, P. (2000) Young Men on the Margins of
Work. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation
Millar, J., Webb, S. and Kemp, M. (1997)
Combining Work and Welfare. York: Joseph
Rowntree Foundation
Noble, M., Smith, G. and Cheung, S.Y. (1998)
Lone Mothers Moving in and out of Benefits. York:
Joseph Rowntree Foundation
O’Connor, W., Bruce, S. and Ritchie, J. (1999)
New Deal for Young People: Pathfinder Followthrough, Findings from a Qualitative Study amongst
Individuals. Sheffield: Employment Service
(ESR29)
Stafford, B., Heaver, C., Ashworth, K., Bates, C.,
Walker, R., McKay, S. and Trickey, H. (1999)
Work and Young Men. York: Joseph Rowntree
Foundation
Stone, V., Hulusi, A., Tovey, P. and Thomas, P.
(2000) Evaluation of the New Deal for Partners of
Unemployed People: Pathfinders. Sheffield:
Employment Service (ESR35)
Tavistock Institute (1998) New Deal for Young
People: Case Studies of Delivery and Impact in
Pathfinder Areas. Sheffield: Employment Service
(ESR7)
Tavistock Institute (1999a) New Deal for Young
People: National Case Studies of Delivery and
Impact. Sheffield: Employment Service (ESR30)
51
Keeping track of welfare reform
Tavistock Institute (1999b) A Review of Thirty
New Deal Partnerships: Part of the Case Study
Evaluation of the New Deal for Young Unemployed
People. Sheffield: Employment Service (ESR32)
Trade Union Congress (1999) The New Deal for
Partners of the Unemployed: Briefing number 36.
London: TUC
Trade Union Congress (2000) New Deal:
Occasional Briefing number 43. London: TUC
Trickey, H. and Løedemel, I. (forthcoming, 2000)
An Offer you can’t Refuse: Workfare in International
Perspective. Bristol: Policy Press
Turok, I. and Webster, D. (1998) ‘The New Deal:
jeopardised by the geography of
unemployment’, Local Economy, February
Walker, R. (2000) ‘Britain’s New Deal for
Disabled People: how will we know if it
works?’, Policy Studies, forthcoming
52
Walker, R., Stafford, B., Youngs, R. and
Ashworth, K. (1999) Young Unemployed People:
Characteristics of the New Deal Target Group (b)
Labour Market Characteristics and Outcomes.
Sheffield: Employment Service (ESR19)
Walsh, K., Atkinson, J. and Barry, J. (1999) The
New Deal Gateway: a Labour Market Assessment.
Sheffield: Employment Service (ESR24)
Webster, D. and Edge, N. (1999) The Jobs Gap in
Britain’s Cities: Employment Loss and Labour
Market Consequences. Bristol: Policy Press
Woodfield, K., Bruce, S. and Ritchie, J. (2000)
New Deal for Young People: National Options.
Sheffield: Employment Service (ESR37)
Woodfield, K., Turner, R. and Ritchie, J. (1999)
New Deal for Young People: the Pathfinder Options.
Sheffield: Employment Service (ESR25)
Appendix: Annotated bibliography of New
Deal evaluations
New Deal for Young People
1
Case studies of delivery in seven Pathfinder
areas, between April and June 1998,
covering urban and rural areas, high and
low unemployment areas; and main models
of ND delivery: 135 interviews with clients,
managers, advisers and partnership
members (Tavistock Institute, 1998).
2
Case studies of delivery in eight national
units of delivery, between November 1998
and April 1999, including revisits to three of
previous case study areas. Areas chosen to
cover urban and rural, and mix of
partnership and delivery: 126 interviews
and two evaluation workshops (Tavistock,
1999a, 1999b).
3
Case study of the gateway in Birmingham,
to examine pattern of flows through the
NDYP, using local labour market data and
interviews with ES staff, participants,
employers, partnership members (Walsh et
al., 1999).
4
Impact of Pathfinder, based on analysis of
the New Deal Evaluation Database,
comparing exits from unemployment in
Pathfinder and comparison areas (Anderton
et al., 1999b).
5
Macro impact of first year, modelling the
impact on the labour market and economic
performance (Anderton et al., 1999a).
6
Qualitative with employers: in-depth
interviews with 24 employers between May
and August 1998, participants and nonparticipants, from private, public and not-
for-profit sectors. Follow-up planned.
(Snape, 1998).
7
Qualitative with employers: in-depth
interviews with 80 employers between April
and June 1999, participants and nonparticipants; public, private and voluntary
sectors; different sizes; national and local
employers (Elam and Snape, 2000).
8
Qualitative with individuals in Pathfinder
and lead private areas: group and in-depth
interviews in May 1998 with 61 people (54
participants and seven leavers) in four ES
districts, chosen to reflect different regional
locations, labour markets and delivery
models (Legard and Ritchie, 1999).
9
Qualitative with individuals in the gateway:
group and in-depth interviews in
September/October 1998, with 57 people
(48 participants and nine leavers) in four ES
districts chosen to reflect different regional
locations, labour markets and delivery
models (Legard and Ritchie, 1999).
10 Qualitative with individuals in options:
group and in-depth interviews in
September/October 1998 and February 1999
with 87 people (69 participants, ten leavers
during option and seven leavers after
option) in four ES district areas chosen to
reflect different regional locations, labour
markets and delivery models. Follow-up: 20
people re-interviewed six months later
(Woodfield et al., 1999).
11 Qualitative with individuals in options: indepth interviews with 74 (including 20
follow-up interviews, from [10] above)
53
Keeping track of welfare reform
participants and leavers, between April and
May 1999, in four areas reflecting different
labour market conditions and delivery
models (Woodfield et al., 2000).
12 Qualitative with individuals in followthrough: in-depth interviews with 35 people
in the follow-through plus seven who had
completed an option and left. Interviews in
four ES districts in early 1999, including 22
repeat interviews from previous studies
(O’Connor et al., 1999).
13 Quantitative with individuals: random
sample of 680 leavers, interviews in August
1998, from 24 New Deal delivery units
(Hales and Collins, 1999).
14 Summary report on first two years of
programme (Hasluck, 2000a).
New Deal for Long-term Unemployed
15 Qualitative with individuals: 90 in-depth
interviews and seven discussion groups in
two national and five pilot areas, reflecting
different regional locations and labour
market conditions, May to June 1999. The
sample included ongoing participants and
those who had left the programmes (Legard
et al., 2000).
16 Case studies of pilot programmes: about 200
interviews with participants, advisers,
employers and providers in eight pilot areas
(Atkinson et al., 2000).
54
New Deal for Lone Parents
17 Qualitative with individuals: site visits plus
in-depth interviews with 78 lone parents,
between January and February 1998, 30 in
comparison areas and 48 in prototype,
including 38 participants (Finch et al., 1999).
18 Quantitative with individuals: interviews
with about 4,500 lone parents (participants
and non-participants) in eight prototype
areas and six comparison areas, chosen to
reflect areas of high, medium and low
unemployment. Some respondents
interviewed twice, with about eight months
between interviews. Comparison area
samples matched to random sample in
prototype areas (Hales et al., 2000a).
19 Analysis of administrative data and labour
market analyses, cost–benefit analysis,
synthesis of project as a whole (Hasluck et
al., 2000; Hales et al., 2000b).
20 National programme: 309 in-depth
interviews across nine ES regions, with
participants and those who decided not to
participate after an initial interview (Martin
Hamblin, 2000).
New Deal for Disabled People
21 Qualitative: site visits plus two group and
12 in-depth interviews with Personal
Advisers, 31 in-depth interviews with 31
people who had been in contact with
Personal Advisers, between March and May
1999.
Appendix: Annotated bibliography of New Deal evaluations
22 Quantitative: interviews with 450
participants and 80 non-participants,
between April and September 1999.
23 In-depth interviews with 30 representatives
of a range of businesses and organisations,
between April and May 1999.
All the above published as Arthur et al. (1999).
Further reports have been published too late to
be included in this review. These include:
Report of stage one of the national survey of
NDLP participants (Bryson et al., 2000; Coleman
and Williams, 2000); a summary of the NDLTU
findings (Hasluck, 2000b); a qualitative study of
the NDLP follow through (O’Connor et al.,
2000).
New Deal for Partners
24 Qualitative with individuals: in-depth
interviews with 134 people (84 partners, 39
jobseekers and 11 ES staff), in three
Pathfinder areas, between April and May
1999 (Stone et al., 2000).
55